IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i7p769-d104538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Promotional Materials on Attitudes and Fear towards Colorectal Cancer Screening among Chinese Older Adults: An Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Doris Y. P. Leung

    (The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

  • Joanne M. T. Chen

    (The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
    School of Health Sciences, Caritas Institute of Higher Education, Hong Kong, China)

  • Vivian W. Q. Lou

    (Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

  • Eliza M. L. Wong

    (The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

  • Aileen W. K. Chan

    (The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

  • Winnie K. W. So

    (The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

  • Carmen W. H. Chan

    (The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China)

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a cost-effective prevention and control strategy. However, the promotion of CRC screening for older adults may be difficult because reading CRC prevention information may evoke embarrassment, fear, and anxiety towards the screening procedure and cancer diagnosis. This study aims to (1) examine the effects of three promotional materials for CRC screening on the attitudes toward CRC screening tests (screening interest, screening effectiveness, and trust in the screening results) and cancer fear, and (2) to explore the interaction effect of cancer fear with screening effectiveness and trust in the screening results on screening interest of the three screening tests (fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy) among Chinese older adults. A total of 114 community-dwelling older adults were asked to look at the corresponding promotional materials (pamphlet, cartoon, and video) of one of the three study groups. The pamphlet and video represent convention strategies and the cartoon represents an innovative strategy. No significant difference was observed in the screening interest and cancer fear across groups. FOBT was the most preferred screening modality. The video group has a large proportion agreed screening effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy than pamphlet and cartoon groups and trusted in the screening results for FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy than the pamphlet group. Logistic regression results showed that the effect of trust in the screening results on screening interest for colonoscopy was greater among participants with higher cancer fear than those with lower cancer fear level. In conclusion, the three promotional groups had produced similar results in their attitudes toward CRC screening and cancer fear. The use of cartoons may be a comparable approach with conventional methods in the promotion of CRC screening. Additional components that can arouse fear and boost response efficacy simultaneously might also be useful for the effective promotion of colonoscopy among Chinese older adults.

Suggested Citation

  • Doris Y. P. Leung & Joanne M. T. Chen & Vivian W. Q. Lou & Eliza M. L. Wong & Aileen W. K. Chan & Winnie K. W. So & Carmen W. H. Chan, 2017. "Effects of Promotional Materials on Attitudes and Fear towards Colorectal Cancer Screening among Chinese Older Adults: An Experimental Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-11, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:7:p:769-:d:104538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/7/769/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/7/769/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nguyen, B.H. & McPhee, S.J. & Stewart, S.L. & Doan, H.T., 2010. "Effectiveness of a controlled trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in Vietnamese Americans," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(5), pages 870-876.
    2. Doris Y. P. Leung & Ka Ming Chow & Sally W. S. Lo & Winnie K. W. So & Carmen W. H. Chan, 2016. "Contributing Factors to Colorectal Cancer Screening among Chinese People: A Review of Quantitative Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-21, May.
    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. Alicia Brotons & Mercedes Guilabert & Francisco Javier Lacueva & José Joaquín Mira & Blanca Lumbreras & María Dolores Picó & Julián Vitaller & Mariana Fe García-Sepulcre & Germán Belda & Javier Sola-V, 2019. "The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire (CSSQP) for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Development and Validation Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Yang Bai & Cho Lee Wong & Xiaolin Peng & Winnie K. W. So, 2020. "Colonoscopy Screening Behaviour and Associated Factors Amongst First-Degree Relatives of People with Colorectal Cancer in China: Testing the Health Belief Model Using a Cross-Sectional Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-14, July.
    3. Florence M. F. Wong, 2021. "Factors Associated with Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice towards Colorectal Cancer and Its Screening among People Aged 50–75 Years," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-10, April.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:7:p:769-:d:104538. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.