IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v39y2019i7p738-754.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?

Author

Listed:
  • Yasmina Okan

    (Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

  • Dafina Petrova

    (Cancer Registry of Granada, Andalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain
    Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada (ibs.GRANADA), University of Granada, Spain
    CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain)

  • Samuel G. Smith

    (Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, UK)

  • Vedran Lesic

    (Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK)

  • Wändi Bruine de Bruin

    (Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
    Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

Abstract

Background. Organized screening programs often rely on written materials to inform the public. In the United Kingdom, women invited for cervical cancer screening receive a leaflet from the National Health Service (NHS) to support screening decisions. However, information about screening may be too complex for people to understand, potentially hindering informed decision making. Objectives. We aimed to identify women’s difficulties in interpreting the leaflet used in England and negative and positive responses to the leaflet. Methods. We used a sequential mixed-methods design involving 2 steps: cognitive think-aloud interviews ( n = 20), followed by an England-wide survey ( n = 602). Data were collected between June 2017 and December 2018, and participants included women aged 25 to 64 y with varying sociodemographics. Results. Interview results revealed misunderstandings concerning screening results, benefits, and additional tests and treatment, although participants tended to react positively to numerical information. Participants were often unfamiliar with the potential harms associated with screening (i.e., screening risks), key aspects of human papillomavirus, and complex terms (e.g., dyskaryosis ). Survey results indicated that interpretation difficulties were common ( M correct items = 12.5 of 23). Lower understanding was associated with lower educational level (β’s >0.15, P ’s

Suggested Citation

  • Yasmina Okan & Dafina Petrova & Samuel G. Smith & Vedran Lesic & Wändi Bruine de Bruin, 2019. "How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(7), pages 738-754, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:7:p:738-754
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X19873647
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X19873647
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X19873647?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alba, Joseph W & Hutchinson, J Wesley, 2000. "Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They Know," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 27(2), pages 123-156, September.
    2. Olsson, Henrik, 2014. "Measuring overconfidence: Methodological problems and statistical artifacts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(8), pages 1766-1770.
    3. Sarah C. Jenkins & Adam J. L. Harris & R. Murray Lark, 2019. "When unlikely outcomes occur: the role of communication format in maintaining communicator credibility," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(5), pages 537-554, May.
    4. Wong-Parodi, Gabrielle & Bruine de Bruin, Wändi & Canfield, Casey, 2013. "Effects of simplifying outreach materials for energy conservation programs that target low-income consumers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1157-1164.
    5. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Eric R. Stone & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson & Paul S. Fischbeck & Mohammad Baradaran Shoraka, 2013. "The effect of communication design and recipients' numeracy on responses to UXO risk," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 981-1004, September.
    6. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zahra Murad & Martin Sefton & Chris Starmer, 2016. "How do risk attitudes affect measured confidence?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 21-46, February.
    2. Inwon Kang & Deokhee Cheon & Matthew Shin, 2011. "Advertising strategy for outbound travel services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 5(4), pages 361-380, December.
    3. Katarzyna Stasiuk & Dominika Maison, 2022. "The Influence of New and Old Energy Labels on Consumer Judgements and Decisions about Household Appliances," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, February.
    4. Anthony Ryan & Clive L Spash & Thomas G Measham, 2009. "Household Water Collection in Canberra," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2009-06, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    5. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Davidoff, Thomas & Gerhard, Patrick & Post, Thomas, 2017. "Reverse mortgages: What homeowners (don’t) know and how it matters," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 151-171.
    7. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    8. Bernd Hayo & Edith Neuenkirch, 2018. "Survey on Germans’ Attitudes Towards and Knowledge of Monetary Policy Issues: Documentation of Survey Methodology and Descriptive Results," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201821, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    9. Erjon Nexhipi, 2022. "The difference in consumer attitudes of locally grown apples with imported apples. the case of Korca Region, Albania:," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 37(1), pages 250-264, November.
    10. Yasmina Okan & Eric R. Stone & Jonathan Parillo & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew M. Parker, 2020. "Probability Size Matters: The Effect of Foreground‐Only versus Foreground+Background Graphs on Risk Aversion Diminishes with Larger Probabilities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 771-788, April.
    11. Ozer, Muammer, 2011. "Understanding the impacts of product knowledge and product type on the accuracy of intentions-based new product predictions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 211(2), pages 359-369, June.
    12. Kizgin, Hatice & Jamal, Ahmad & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Rana, Nripendra P., 2021. "The impact of online vs. offline acculturation on purchase intentions: A multigroup analysis of the role of education," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 724-735.
    13. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L. & Measham, Thomas G., 2021. "Motives Behind Domestic Greywater and Rainwater Collection: Evidence from Australia," SRE-Discussion Papers 05/2021, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    14. Umarov, Alisher & Sherrick, Bruce J., 2005. "Farmers' Subjective Yield Distributions: Calibration and Implications for Crop Insurance Valuation," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19396, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Kwon, Kyoung-Nan & Lee, Jinkook, 2009. "The effects of reference point, knowledge, and risk propensity on the evaluation of financial products," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(7), pages 719-725, July.
    16. Paul Windrum & Koen Frenken & Lawrence Green, 2017. "The importance of ergonomic design in product innovation. Lessons from the development of the portable computer," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(6), pages 953-971.
    17. Loock, Moritz & Hinnen, Gieri, 2015. "Heuristics in organizations: A review and a research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(9), pages 2027-2036.
    18. Naderi, Iman & Paswan, Audhesh K. & Guzman, Francisco, 2018. "Beyond the shadow of a doubt: The effect of consumer knowledge on restaurant evaluation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 221-229.
    19. Jurriaan P. Oudhoff & Daniëlle R. M. Timmermans, 2015. "The Effect of Different Graphical and Numerical Likelihood Formats on Perception of Likelihood and Choice," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 487-500, May.
    20. Bryan Hochstein & Willy Bolander & Ronald Goldsmith & Christopher R. Plouffe, 2019. "Adapting influence approaches to informed consumers in high-involvement purchases: are salespeople really doomed?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 118-137, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:39:y:2019:i:7:p:738-754. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.