IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v42y2022i3p387-397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge

Author

Listed:
  • K. D. Valentine

    (Division of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
    Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Pete Wegier

    (Sinai Health, Toronto, ON, Canada
    University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada)

  • Victoria A. Shaffer

    (University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA)

  • Laura D. Scherer

    (University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA)

Abstract

Purpose The US Preventive Services Task Force has changed their screening recommendations, encouraging informed patient choice and shared decision making as a result of emerging evidence. We aimed to compare the impact of a didactic intervention, a descriptive harms intervention, a narrative intervention, and a new risk communication strategy titled Aiding Risk Information learning through Simulated Experience (ARISE) on preferences for a hypothetical beneficial cancer screening test (one that reduces the chance of cancer death or extends life) versus a hypothetical screening test with no proven physical benefits. Method A total of 3386 men and women aged 40 to 70 completed an online survey about prostate or breast cancer screening. Participants were randomly assigned to either an unbeneficial test condition (0 lives saved due to screening) or a beneficial test condition (1 life saved due to screening). Participants then reviewed 4 informational interventions about either breast (women) or prostate (men) cancer screening. First, participants were provided didactic information alongside an explicit recommendation. This was followed by a descriptive harms intervention in which the possible harms of overdetection were explained. Participants then viewed 2 additional interventions: a narrative and ARISE (an intervention in which participants learned about probabilities by viewing simulated outcomes). The order of these last 2 interventions was randomized. Preference for being screened with the test and knowledge about the test were measured. Results With each successive intervention, preferences for screening tests decreased an equivalent amount for both a beneficial and unbeneficial test. Knowledge about the screening tests was largely unimpacted by the interventions. Conclusions Presenting detailed risk and benefit information, narratives, and ARISE reduced preferences for screening regardless of the net public benefit of screening.

Suggested Citation

  • K. D. Valentine & Pete Wegier & Victoria A. Shaffer & Laura D. Scherer, 2022. "The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 387-397, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:42:y:2022:i:3:p:387-397
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211039743
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X211039743
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X211039743?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. Winterbottom, Anna & Bekker, Hilary L. & Conner, Mark & Mooney, Andrew, 2008. "Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2079-2088, December.
    2. Laura D. Scherer & Jeffrey T. Kullgren & Tanner Caverly & Aaron M. Scherer & Victoria A. Shaffer & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2018. "Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 708-718, August.
    3. Pete Wegier & Bonnie A. Armstrong & Victoria A. Shaffer, 2019. "Aiding Risk Information learning through Simulated Experience (ARISE): A Comparison of the Communication of Screening Test Information in Explicit and Simulated Experience Formats," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(3), pages 196-207, April.
    4. Karen A. Scherr & Angela Fagerlin & Timothy Hofer & Laura D. Scherer & Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Lillie D. Williamson & Valerie C. Kahn & Jeffrey S. Montgomery & Kirsten L. Greene & Biqi Zhang & Peter , 2017. "Physician Recommendations Trump Patient Preferences in Prostate Cancer Treatment Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 56-69, January.
    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. Victoria A. Shaffer & Suzanne Brodney & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Yaara Zisman-Ilani & Sarah Munro & Sian K. Smith & Elizabeth Thomas & Katherine D. Valentine & Hilary L. Bekker, 2021. "Do Personal Stories Make Patient Decision Aids More Effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 897-906, October.
    2. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    3. Milner, Mattie & Rice, Stephen & Rice, Connor, 2019. "Support for environmentally-friendly airports influenced by political affiliation and social identity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    4. Laura D. Scherer & Jeffrey T. Kullgren & Tanner Caverly & Aaron M. Scherer & Victoria A. Shaffer & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2018. "Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 708-718, August.
    5. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    6. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.
    7. Jensen, Jakob D. & King, Andy J. & Carcioppolo, Nick & Krakow, Melinda & Samadder, N. Jewel & Morgan, Susan, 2014. "Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50–75: A randomized controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 31-40.
    8. Victoria A. Shaffer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2013. "All Stories Are Not Alike," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 4-13, January.
    9. Cornelia Betsch & Corina Ulshöfer & Frank Renkewitz & Tilmann Betsch, 2011. "The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 742-753, September.
    10. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Annika Wallin & Andrew M. Parker & JoNell Strough & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "Effects of Anti- Versus Pro-Vaccine Narratives on Responses by Recipients Varying in Numeracy: A Cross-sectional Survey-Based Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 860-870, November.
    11. Aaron H. Anglin & Shane W. Reid & Jeremy C. Short, 2023. "More Than One Way to Tell a Story: A Configurational Approach to Storytelling in Crowdfunding," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 461-494, March.
    12. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    13. van Laer, Tom & de Ruyter, Ko, 2010. "In stories we trust: How narrative apologies provide cover for competitive vulnerability after integrity-violating blog posts," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 164-174.
    14. Gerrit Antonides & Michelle Welvaarts, 2020. "Effects of Default Option and Lateral Presentation on Consumer Choice of the Sustainable Option in an Online Choice Task," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-15, July.
    15. de Barra, Mícheál, 2017. "Reporting bias inflates the reputation of medical treatments: A comparison of outcomes in clinical trials and online product reviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 248-255.
    16. Susanne Hoffmann & Francis G. Caro & Alison S. Gottlieb & Iris Kesternich & Joachim K. Winter, 2014. "Contributions of Second Opinions, Outcome Forecasts, and Testimonials to Patient Decisions about Knee Replacement Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 603-614, July.
    17. Pinandito Dhirotsaha Pramana & Prahastiwi Utari & Albert Muhammad Isrun Naini, 2020. "Restorative Narrative of Covid-19 Patients as Health Campaign Message: A Content Analysis of Youtube Videos," Technium Social Sciences Journal, Technium Science, vol. 10(1), pages 121-132, August.
    18. Christopher E. Clarke & Jeff Niederdeppe & Helen C. Lundell, 2012. "Narratives and Images Used by Public Communication Campaigns Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Health Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    19. Karen Scherr & Rebecca K. Delaney & Peter Ubel & Valerie C. Kahn & Daniel Hamstra & John T. Wei & Angela Fagerlin, 2022. "Preparing Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancer to Participate in Clinical Appointments Using a Shared Decision Making Training Video," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 364-374, April.
    20. Cornelia Betsch & Frank Renkewitz & Niels Haase, 2013. "Effect of Narrative Reports about Vaccine Adverse Events and Bias-Awareness Disclaimers on Vaccine Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 14-25, 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:42:y:2022:i:3:p:387-397. 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.