The effect of using emotive language in information about over-diagnosis in cancer screening on knowledge, attitudes and screening intentions

The effect of varying emotive content of cancer screening information regarding over-diagnosis on knowledge, attitudes and screening intentions: a randomised controlled trial

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN15366380

Enrollment

600

Registered

2015-06-24

Start date

2015-05-01

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2016-10-17

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Understanding of over-diagnosis in cancer screening. Cancer

Interventions

Following baseline measurements, participants will be randomized to: 1. A vignette explaining over-diagnosis and its consequences in an emotive writing style, including a narrative account of a perso

men to a vignette about prostate cancer. After confirming that they have read the vignette, participants will be directed to the follow-up questionnaire.

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Men and women 2. Aged between 40-70 3. Able to give informed consent

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Participants with a personal history of breast/prostate cancer

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Primary outcome measures will be collected immediately after exposure to the intervention. 1. Attitudes to taking part in breast/prostate cancer screening 2. Attitudes to participation in breast/prostate cancer screening will be measured as by Hersch and colleagues (2015), using a validated scale consisting of six items. Each item will be preceded by the statement: ‘For me, taking part in breast/prostate cancer screening would be…’ 2.1. (1) A bad thing – (7) not a bad thing 2.2. (1) Beneficial – (7) not beneficial 2.3. (1) Harmful – (7) not harmful 2.4. (1) A good thing – (7) a bad thing 2.5. (1) Worthwhile – (7) not worthwhile 2.6. (1) Important – (7) unimportant In addition, we will ask two questions from Schwartz et al. (2004): 2.7. ‘Do you think cancer screening for healthy people is almost always a good idea?’, with response options being (‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘it depends’, ‘not sure’) and breast/prostate cancer screening could reduce my chance of dying from breast/prostate cancer’, with response options being ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘agree’, ‘strongly agree’. 3. Breast/prostate cancer screening knowledge: We will assess conceptual breast/prostate cancer screening knowledge with six questions used by Hersch and colleagues (2015). Response options to all questions will be ‘true’, ‘false’, and ‘not sure’: 3.1.‘Women (men) who go for breast (prostate) cancer screening are more likely to be diagnosed with breast (prostate) cancer, 3.2. ‘Not all breast (prostate) cancer causes illness and death’; 3.3. Health professionals can’t predict whether cancer detected by screening will cause harm; 3.4. One risk of screening is that sometimes cancers are detected and treated that would not have caused any problems 3.5. ‘After screening, some healthy people will be unnecessarily turned into cancer patients’, 3.6. ’Cancer screening finds harmless cancers more often than it prevents death’. 4. Numeric knowledge will be assessed with two	—

Measure

Time frame

Primary outcome measures will be collected immediately after exposure to the intervention. 1. Attitudes to taking part in breast/prostate cancer screening 2. Attitudes to participation in breast/prostate cancer screening will be measured as by Hersch and colleagues (2015), using a validated scale consisting of six items. Each item will be preceded by the statement: ‘For me, taking part in breast/prostate cancer screening would be…’ 2.1. (1) A bad thing – (7) not a bad thing 2.2. (1) Beneficial – (7) not beneficial 2.3. (1) Harmful – (7) not harmful 2.4. (1) A good thing – (7) a bad thing 2.5. (1) Worthwhile – (7) not worthwhile 2.6. (1) Important – (7) unimportant In addition, we will ask two questions from Schwartz et al. (2004): 2.7. ‘Do you think cancer screening for healthy people is almost always a good idea?’, with response options being (‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘it depends’, ‘not sure’) and breast/prostate cancer screening could reduce my chance of dying from breast/prostate cancer’, with response options being ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘agree’, ‘strongly agree’. 3. Breast/prostate cancer screening knowledge: We will assess conceptual breast/prostate cancer screening knowledge with six questions used by Hersch and colleagues (2015). Response options to all questions will be ‘true’, ‘false’, and ‘not sure’: 3.1.‘Women (men) who go for breast (prostate) cancer screening are more likely to be diagnosed with breast (prostate) cancer, 3.2. ‘Not all breast (prostate) cancer causes illness and death’; 3.3. Health professionals can’t predict whether cancer detected by screening will cause harm; 3.4. One risk of screening is that sometimes cancers are detected and treated that would not have caused any problems 3.5. ‘After screening, some healthy people will be unnecessarily turned into cancer patients’, 3.6. ’Cancer screening finds harmless cancers more often than it prevents death’. 4. Numeric knowledge will be assessed with two

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1. Decisional conflict: assessed using the 10-item decisional conflict scale 2. Decision satisfaction: assessed using the 10-item decision attitude scale	—

Countries

United Kingdom

Contacts

Public ContactSusanne Meisel

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026