How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think‐aloud study

Background The English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme biennially invites individuals aged 60–74 to participate in screening. The booklet, ‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts' accompanies this invitation. Its primary aim is to inform potential participants about the aims, advantages and dis...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 2015-10, Vol.18 (5), p.703-714
Hauptverfasser: Smith, Samuel G., Vart, Gemma, Wolf, Michael S., Obichere, Austin, Baker, Helen J., Raine, Rosalind, Wardle, Jane, Wagner, Christian
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 714
container_issue 5
container_start_page 703
container_title Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
container_volume 18
creator Smith, Samuel G.
Vart, Gemma
Wolf, Michael S.
Obichere, Austin
Baker, Helen J.
Raine, Rosalind
Wardle, Jane
Wagner, Christian
description Background The English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme biennially invites individuals aged 60–74 to participate in screening. The booklet, ‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts' accompanies this invitation. Its primary aim is to inform potential participants about the aims, advantages and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. Objective To provide detailed commentary on how individuals process the information contained within ‘The Facts’ booklet. Design, setting and participants This study comprised of 18 interviews with individuals aged 45–60 and used a ‘think‐aloud’ paradigm in which participants read aloud the booklet. Participant utterances (verbal statements made in response to researcher‐led prompts) were transcribed and analysed using a combination of content and thematic analysis. Results A total of 776 coded utterances were analysed (mean = 43.1 per person; range = 8–95). While overall comprehension was satisfactory, several problem areas were identified such as the use of complex unfamiliar terminology and the presentation of numerical information. Specific sections such as colonoscopy risk information evoked negative emotional responses. Participants made several suggestions for ways in which comprehension might be improved. Conclusion Public perceptions of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme information materials indicated that specific aspects of the booklet were difficult to process. These materials may be an appropriate target to improve public understanding of the aims, benefits and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. These findings will contribute to a broader NIHR‐funded project that aims to design a supplementary ‘gist‐based’ information leaflet suitable for low literacy populations.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/hex.12117
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5060830</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1755539141</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5187-c7109776274ea429c7695ee184570568dc4068b0acd0f016d11c73b4782eb8743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkc9u1DAQhy0Eon_gwAsgH-GwrSex44QDEqoKi1SJC0jcLMeZdA2OHWynZW88As_YJ8HtLhUckJjLjORPn2b8I-QZsBModbrB7ydQAcgH5BDqplvJphIP93MjoD4gRyl9YQxk3crH5KCqO2BdzQ6JX4drOgQ6Y5gdUuszxjliLtMY4qSzDZ7qPiyZmuBCRJO1o0Z7g5EmExG99ZevaOgTxqs7PNExholqmjfWf7358VO7sAw05WXYPiGPRu0SPt33Y_Lp7fnHs_Xq4sO792dvLlZGQCtXRpb1ZLlCctS86oxsOoEILReSiaYdDGdN2zNtBjYyaAYAI-uey7bCvpW8Piavd9556SccDPoctVNztJOOWxW0VX-_eLtRl-FKCdawtmZF8GIviOHbgimrySaDzmmPYUkKpBCi_CKH_0Ch6Thwdou-3KEmhpQijvcbAVO3UaoSpbqLsrDP_zzhnvydXQFOd8C1dbj9t0mtzz_vlL8AnXyqzw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1716941401</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think‐aloud study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Smith, Samuel G. ; Vart, Gemma ; Wolf, Michael S. ; Obichere, Austin ; Baker, Helen J. ; Raine, Rosalind ; Wardle, Jane ; Wagner, Christian</creator><creatorcontrib>Smith, Samuel G. ; Vart, Gemma ; Wolf, Michael S. ; Obichere, Austin ; Baker, Helen J. ; Raine, Rosalind ; Wardle, Jane ; Wagner, Christian</creatorcontrib><description>Background The English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme biennially invites individuals aged 60–74 to participate in screening. The booklet, ‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts' accompanies this invitation. Its primary aim is to inform potential participants about the aims, advantages and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. Objective To provide detailed commentary on how individuals process the information contained within ‘The Facts’ booklet. Design, setting and participants This study comprised of 18 interviews with individuals aged 45–60 and used a ‘think‐aloud’ paradigm in which participants read aloud the booklet. Participant utterances (verbal statements made in response to researcher‐led prompts) were transcribed and analysed using a combination of content and thematic analysis. Results A total of 776 coded utterances were analysed (mean = 43.1 per person; range = 8–95). While overall comprehension was satisfactory, several problem areas were identified such as the use of complex unfamiliar terminology and the presentation of numerical information. Specific sections such as colonoscopy risk information evoked negative emotional responses. Participants made several suggestions for ways in which comprehension might be improved. Conclusion Public perceptions of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme information materials indicated that specific aspects of the booklet were difficult to process. These materials may be an appropriate target to improve public understanding of the aims, benefits and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. These findings will contribute to a broader NIHR‐funded project that aims to design a supplementary ‘gist‐based’ information leaflet suitable for low literacy populations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1369-6513</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1369-7625</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/hex.12117</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23910930</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley and Sons Inc</publisher><subject>cancer screening ; colorectal cancer ; Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Colorectal Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control ; Comprehension ; Early Detection of Cancer ; Female ; fuzzy‐trace theory ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; Health Literacy ; Humans ; literacy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Original ; Original Research Papers ; Patient Education as Topic - methods ; patient information ; think aloud</subject><ispartof>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015-10, Vol.18 (5), p.703-714</ispartof><rights>2013 The Authors Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2013 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5187-c7109776274ea429c7695ee184570568dc4068b0acd0f016d11c73b4782eb8743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5187-c7109776274ea429c7695ee184570568dc4068b0acd0f016d11c73b4782eb8743</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5060830/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5060830/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23910930$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Smith, Samuel G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vart, Gemma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolf, Michael S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Obichere, Austin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Helen J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raine, Rosalind</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wardle, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Christian</creatorcontrib><title>How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think‐aloud study</title><title>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy</title><addtitle>Health Expect</addtitle><description>Background The English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme biennially invites individuals aged 60–74 to participate in screening. The booklet, ‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts' accompanies this invitation. Its primary aim is to inform potential participants about the aims, advantages and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. Objective To provide detailed commentary on how individuals process the information contained within ‘The Facts’ booklet. Design, setting and participants This study comprised of 18 interviews with individuals aged 45–60 and used a ‘think‐aloud’ paradigm in which participants read aloud the booklet. Participant utterances (verbal statements made in response to researcher‐led prompts) were transcribed and analysed using a combination of content and thematic analysis. Results A total of 776 coded utterances were analysed (mean = 43.1 per person; range = 8–95). While overall comprehension was satisfactory, several problem areas were identified such as the use of complex unfamiliar terminology and the presentation of numerical information. Specific sections such as colonoscopy risk information evoked negative emotional responses. Participants made several suggestions for ways in which comprehension might be improved. Conclusion Public perceptions of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme information materials indicated that specific aspects of the booklet were difficult to process. These materials may be an appropriate target to improve public understanding of the aims, benefits and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. These findings will contribute to a broader NIHR‐funded project that aims to design a supplementary ‘gist‐based’ information leaflet suitable for low literacy populations.</description><subject>cancer screening</subject><subject>colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Early Detection of Cancer</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>fuzzy‐trace theory</subject><subject>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</subject><subject>Health Literacy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>literacy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Research Papers</subject><subject>Patient Education as Topic - methods</subject><subject>patient information</subject><subject>think aloud</subject><issn>1369-6513</issn><issn>1369-7625</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkc9u1DAQhy0Eon_gwAsgH-GwrSex44QDEqoKi1SJC0jcLMeZdA2OHWynZW88As_YJ8HtLhUckJjLjORPn2b8I-QZsBModbrB7ydQAcgH5BDqplvJphIP93MjoD4gRyl9YQxk3crH5KCqO2BdzQ6JX4drOgQ6Y5gdUuszxjliLtMY4qSzDZ7qPiyZmuBCRJO1o0Z7g5EmExG99ZevaOgTxqs7PNExholqmjfWf7358VO7sAw05WXYPiGPRu0SPt33Y_Lp7fnHs_Xq4sO792dvLlZGQCtXRpb1ZLlCctS86oxsOoEILReSiaYdDGdN2zNtBjYyaAYAI-uey7bCvpW8Piavd9556SccDPoctVNztJOOWxW0VX-_eLtRl-FKCdawtmZF8GIviOHbgimrySaDzmmPYUkKpBCi_CKH_0Ch6Thwdou-3KEmhpQijvcbAVO3UaoSpbqLsrDP_zzhnvydXQFOd8C1dbj9t0mtzz_vlL8AnXyqzw</recordid><startdate>201510</startdate><enddate>201510</enddate><creator>Smith, Samuel G.</creator><creator>Vart, Gemma</creator><creator>Wolf, Michael S.</creator><creator>Obichere, Austin</creator><creator>Baker, Helen J.</creator><creator>Raine, Rosalind</creator><creator>Wardle, Jane</creator><creator>Wagner, Christian</creator><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201510</creationdate><title>How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think‐aloud study</title><author>Smith, Samuel G. ; Vart, Gemma ; Wolf, Michael S. ; Obichere, Austin ; Baker, Helen J. ; Raine, Rosalind ; Wardle, Jane ; Wagner, Christian</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5187-c7109776274ea429c7695ee184570568dc4068b0acd0f016d11c73b4782eb8743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>cancer screening</topic><topic>colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Early Detection of Cancer</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>fuzzy‐trace theory</topic><topic>Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice</topic><topic>Health Literacy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>literacy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Research Papers</topic><topic>Patient Education as Topic - methods</topic><topic>patient information</topic><topic>think aloud</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Smith, Samuel G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vart, Gemma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolf, Michael S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Obichere, Austin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Helen J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raine, Rosalind</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wardle, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wagner, Christian</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library Free Content</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Smith, Samuel G.</au><au>Vart, Gemma</au><au>Wolf, Michael S.</au><au>Obichere, Austin</au><au>Baker, Helen J.</au><au>Raine, Rosalind</au><au>Wardle, Jane</au><au>Wagner, Christian</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think‐aloud study</atitle><jtitle>Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy</jtitle><addtitle>Health Expect</addtitle><date>2015-10</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>703</spage><epage>714</epage><pages>703-714</pages><issn>1369-6513</issn><eissn>1369-7625</eissn><abstract>Background The English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme biennially invites individuals aged 60–74 to participate in screening. The booklet, ‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts' accompanies this invitation. Its primary aim is to inform potential participants about the aims, advantages and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. Objective To provide detailed commentary on how individuals process the information contained within ‘The Facts’ booklet. Design, setting and participants This study comprised of 18 interviews with individuals aged 45–60 and used a ‘think‐aloud’ paradigm in which participants read aloud the booklet. Participant utterances (verbal statements made in response to researcher‐led prompts) were transcribed and analysed using a combination of content and thematic analysis. Results A total of 776 coded utterances were analysed (mean = 43.1 per person; range = 8–95). While overall comprehension was satisfactory, several problem areas were identified such as the use of complex unfamiliar terminology and the presentation of numerical information. Specific sections such as colonoscopy risk information evoked negative emotional responses. Participants made several suggestions for ways in which comprehension might be improved. Conclusion Public perceptions of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme information materials indicated that specific aspects of the booklet were difficult to process. These materials may be an appropriate target to improve public understanding of the aims, benefits and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. These findings will contribute to a broader NIHR‐funded project that aims to design a supplementary ‘gist‐based’ information leaflet suitable for low literacy populations.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley and Sons Inc</pub><pmid>23910930</pmid><doi>10.1111/hex.12117</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1369-6513
ispartof Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2015-10, Vol.18 (5), p.703-714
issn 1369-6513
1369-7625
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5060830
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley Online Library Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects cancer screening
colorectal cancer
Colorectal Neoplasms - diagnosis
Colorectal Neoplasms - prevention & control
Comprehension
Early Detection of Cancer
Female
fuzzy‐trace theory
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Health Literacy
Humans
literacy
Male
Middle Aged
Original
Original Research Papers
Patient Education as Topic - methods
patient information
think aloud
title How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think‐aloud study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T05%3A12%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20do%20people%20interpret%20information%20about%20colorectal%20cancer%20screening:%20observations%20from%20a%20think%E2%80%90aloud%20study&rft.jtitle=Health%20expectations%20:%20an%20international%20journal%20of%20public%20participation%20in%20health%20care%20and%20health%20policy&rft.au=Smith,%20Samuel%20G.&rft.date=2015-10&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=703&rft.epage=714&rft.pages=703-714&rft.issn=1369-6513&rft.eissn=1369-7625&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/hex.12117&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1755539141%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1716941401&rft_id=info:pmid/23910930&rfr_iscdi=true