Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/22067
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorO'Carroll, Ronanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorChambers, Julieen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBrownlee, Lindaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorLibby, Gillianen_UK
dc.contributor.authorSteele, Roberten_UK
dc.date.accessioned2015-10-31T01:12:38Z-
dc.date.available2015-10-31T01:12:38Z-
dc.date.issued2015-10en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/22067-
dc.description.abstractObjective. Screening is key to early detection of colorectal cancer. Our aim was to determine whether a simple anticipated regret (AR) intervention could increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. Methods. We conducted a randomised controlled trial of a simple, questionnaire-based AR intervention, delivered alongside existing pre-notification letters. 60,000 adults aged 50-74 from the Scottish National Screening programme were randomised to: 1) no questionnaire (control), 2) Health Locus of Control questionnaire (HLOC) or 3) HLOC plus anticipated regret questionnaire (AR). Primary outcome was guaiac Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) return. Secondary outcomes included intention to return test kit and perceived disgust (ICK). Results. 59,366 people were analysed as allocated (Intentionto- treat (ITT)); there were no overall differences between treatment groups on FOBT uptake (control: 57.3%, HLOC: 56.9%, AR: 57.4%). 13,645 (34.2%) people returned questionnaires. Analysis of the secondary questionnaire measures showed that AR had an indirect effect on FOBT uptake via intention, whilst ICK had a direct effect on FOBT uptake over and above intention. The effect of AR on FOBT uptake was also moderated by intention strength: for less than strong intenders only, uptake was 4.2% higher in the AR (84.6%) versus the HLOC group (80.4%) (95% CI for difference (2.0, 6.5)). Conclusion. The findings show that psychological concepts including anticipated regret and perceived disgust (ICK) are important factors in determining FOBT uptake. However, there was no simple effect of the AR intervention in the ITT. We conclude that exposure to AR in those with low intentions may be required to increase FOBT uptake. Current controlled trials: www.controlledtrials. com number: ISRCTN74986452.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherElsevieren_UK
dc.relationO'Carroll R, Chambers J, Brownlee L, Libby G & Steele R (2015) Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screeningen_UK
dc.relationA randomised controlled trial of a brief psychological intervention to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer screening in Scotlanden_UK
dc.relationCZH/4/793en_UK
dc.rightsThis article is open-access under a CC BY-NC_ND licence. Open access publishing allows free access to and distribution of published articles where the author retains copyright of their work by employing a Creative Commons attribution licence — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not use the material for commercial purposes. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.en_UK
dc.subjectColorectal canceren_UK
dc.subjectScreeningen_UK
dc.subjectAnticipated Regreten_UK
dc.subjectFaecal Occult Blood Testen_UK
dc.subjectDisgusten_UK
dc.titleAnticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS): a randomised controlled trialen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.026en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid26301484en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleSocial Science and Medicineen_UK
dc.citation.issn0277-9536en_UK
dc.citation.issn0277-9536en_UK
dc.citation.volume142en_UK
dc.citation.spage118en_UK
dc.citation.epage127en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderChief Scientist Officeen_UK
dc.author.emailronan.ocarroll@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date27/07/2015en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPsychologyen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPsychologyen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationScottish Bowel Screening Centreen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationScottish Bowel Screening Centreen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Dundeeen_UK
dc.identifier.isi000362060900013en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84939816631en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid594186en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-5130-291Xen_UK
dc.date.accepted2015-07-25en_UK
dc.date.firstcompliantdepositdate2015-07-24en_UK
dc.description.refREF Compliant by Deposit in Stirling's Repositoryen_UK
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
O'Carroll et al_SSM_2015.pdfFulltext - Published Version927.11 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.