Testing whether barriers to a hypothetical screening test affect unrelated perceived benefits and vice versa: A randomised, experimental study. Issue 2 (February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ghanouni, Alex; Nuttall, Ella; Wardle, Jane; von Wagner, Christian
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 100:Issue 2(2017)
• Page Start: e1
• Page End: e24
• Publication Date: 2017-02
• Subjects: Public health -- Preventive medicine -- Screening -- Decision making -- Risk communication -- Risk perception -- Affect -- Emotion -- Cognitive biases -- Survey methods; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.09.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: Perceptions of test barriers were more negative when unrelated screening benefits were low. Perceptions of screening benefits were less positive when unrelated test barriers were high. Screening intentions were markedly lower for a test with both high barriers and low benefits. Abstract: Objective: Determine whether (fictitious) health screening test benefits affect perceptions of (unrelated) barriers, and barriers affect perceptions of benefits. Methods: UK adults were recruited via an online survey panel and randomised to receive a vignette describing a hypothetical screening test with either high or low benefits (higher vs. lower mortality reduction) and high or low barriers (severe vs. mild side-effects; a 2 × 2 factorial design). ANOVAs compared mean perceived benefits and barriers scores. Screening 'intentions' were compared using Pearson's χ 2 test. Results: Benefits were rated less favourably when barriers were high (mean: 27.4, standard deviation: 5.3) than when they were low (M: 28.5, SD: 4.8; p = 0.010, partial η 2 = 0.031). Barriers were rated more negatively when benefits were low (M: 17.1, SD: 7.6) than when they were high (M: 15.7, SD: 7.3; p = 0.023, partial η 2 = 0.024). Most intended to have the test in all conditions (73–81%); except for the low benefit-high barrier condition (37%; p < 0.0005; N = 218). Conclusions: Perceptions of test attributes may be influenced by unrelated characteristics. Practice implications: Reducing screening test barriers alone may have suboptimal effects on perceptions of barriers if benefits remain low; increasing screening benefits may not improve perceptions of benefits if barriers remain high.