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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Yang, Daecheon & Kim, Hyuntae, 2020. "Managerial overconfidence and manipulation of operating cash flow: Evidence from Korea✰," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    9. Andrews, J. Craig & Netemeyer, Richard & Burton, Scot & Kees, Jeremy, 2021. "What consumers actually know: The role of objective nutrition knowledge in processing stop sign and traffic light front-of-pack nutrition labels," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 140-155.
    10. Helen X. H. Bao & Steven Haotong Li, 2016. "Overconfidence And Real Estate Research: A Survey Of The Literature," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 61(04), pages 1-24, September.
    11. Markus Glaser & Martin Weber, 2007. "Overconfidence and trading volume," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 32(1), pages 1-36, June.
    12. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    13. Heiman, Amir & Lowengart, Oded, 2011. "The effects of information about health hazards in food on consumers' choice process," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 140-147, May.
    14. Dominik M Piehlmaier & J Jeffrey Inman & Andrew T Stephen & Andrew T Stephen, 2023. "The One-Man Show: The Effect of Joint Decision-Making on Investor Overconfidence," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 50(2), pages 426-446.
    15. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    16. Warut Khern-am-nuai & Matthew J. Hashim & Alain Pinsonneault & Weining Yang & Ninghui Li, 2023. "Augmenting Password Strength Meter Design Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model: Evidence from Randomized Experiments," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 157-177, March.
    17. Arun Gopalakrishnan & Raghuram Iyengar & Robert J. Meyer, 2015. "Consumer Dynamic Usage Allocation and Learning Under Multipart Tariffs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 116-133, January.
    18. Hu, Han-fen & Krishen, Anjala S. & Barnes, Jesse, 2023. "Through narratives we learn: Exploring knowledge-building as a marketing strategy for prosocial water reuse," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    19. Koll, Oliver & von Wallpach, Sylvia, 2014. "Intended brand associations: Do they really drive consumer response?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(7), pages 1501-1507.
    20. Tran Thu & Moritaka Masahiro & Liu Ran & Fukuda Susumu, 2018. "Information effect on consumer adoption for a new beef brand in the Vietnamese market: prior knowledge, appealing the brand distinction, differentiation and similarity," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 13(3), pages 1014-1034, September.

    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.