Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorUsher-Smith, Juliet A.
dc.contributor.authorMills, Katie M.
dc.contributor.authorRiedinger, Christiane
dc.contributor.authorSaunders, Catherine L.
dc.contributor.authorHelsingen, Lise M.
dc.contributor.authorLytvyn, Lyubov
dc.contributor.authorBuskermolen, Maaike
dc.contributor.authorLansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris
dc.contributor.authorBretthauer, Michael
dc.contributor.authorGuyatt, Gordon
dc.contributor.authorGriffin, Simon J.
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-17T02:08:30Z
dc.date.available2021-02-17T02:08:30Z
dc.date.issued2021-02-16
dc.date.submitted2020-11-28
dc.identifier.otherpone-d-20-37444
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/317778
dc.descriptionFunder: Research Trainees Coordinating Centre; funder-id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000659
dc.description.abstractBackground: There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals’ risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals. Method: We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no). Results: Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening. Conclusions: Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectResearch Article
dc.subjectMedicine and health sciences
dc.subjectResearch and analysis methods
dc.subjectBiology and life sciences
dc.subjectSocial sciences
dc.subjectPeople and places
dc.titleThe impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2021-02-17T02:08:30Z
prism.issueIdentifier2
prism.publicationNamePLOS ONE
prism.volume16
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.64892
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-01-30
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1371/journal.pone.0246991
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
datacite.contributor.supervisoreditor: Paci, Eugenio
dc.contributor.orcidUsher-Smith, Juliet A. [0000-0002-8501-2531]
dc.contributor.orcidGriffin, Simon J. [0000-0002-2157-4797]
dc.identifier.eissn1932-6203
pubs.funder-project-idNIHR School for Primary Care Research (427)
pubs.funder-project-idCancer Research UK (C55650/A21464)
datacite.issupplementedby.urlhttps://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.62762


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)