Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/30162
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMcGregor, Lesley Men_UK
dc.contributor.authorvon Wagner, Christianen_UK
dc.contributor.authorVart, Gemmaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorYuen, Wing Cheeen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRaine, Rosalinden_UK
dc.contributor.authorWardle, Janeen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRobb, Kathryn Aen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-26T00:00:32Z-
dc.date.available2019-09-26T00:00:32Z-
dc.date.issued2015-03-21en_UK
dc.identifier.other162en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/30162-
dc.description.abstractBackground The potential benefits of colorectal cancer screening are limited by low uptake. This study tested whether providing narrative accounts of the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening experience positively affected beliefs about CRC screening and intention to be screened. Methods 4125 adults aged 45-59.5 years, from three general practices in England, were randomised to be sent the standard information on CRC screening or the standard information plus a narrative-based leaflet describing CRC screening experiences. Both groups were asked to complete and return a questionnaire on beliefs about CRC screening after reading the study materials. Between-group differences on responses were assessed with t-tests. A mediation analysis then addressed the mediating role of CRC screening beliefs on the group and intention relationship. Results Relative to the standard information group (n = 590), the standard information plus narrative leaflet group (n = 631) showed higher perceived vulnerability to CRC, higher perceived test response efficacy, a stronger belief that the screening test would provide peace of mind and less disgust with the test procedure. There were no between group differences on perceived self-efficacy or the understanding that the screening test should be done in the absence of symptoms. Respondents who received the additional narrative leaflet reported significantly higher CRC screening intentions than respondents who received the standard information only. Controlling for the CRC screening beliefs reduced the effect of group on intention to non-significance. Conclusions An additional narrative leaflet had a positive impact on beliefs about CRC screening which led to stronger screening intentions.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBMCen_UK
dc.relationMcGregor LM, von Wagner C, Vart G, Yuen WC, Raine R, Wardle J & Robb KA (2015) The impact of supplementary narrative-based information on colorectal cancer screening beliefs and intention. BMC Cancer, 15, Art. No.: 162. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1167-3en_UK
dc.rights© 2015 McGregor et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.titleThe impact of supplementary narrative-based information on colorectal cancer screening beliefs and intentionen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12885-015-1167-3en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid25884168en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMC Canceren_UK
dc.citation.issn1471-2407en_UK
dc.citation.volume15en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderNational Institute for Health Researchen_UK
dc.citation.date21/03/2015en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Glasgowen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000352837000001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84927712792en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1399391en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-7093-1391en_UK
dc.date.accepted2015-03-05en_UK
dc.description.refREF Compliant by Deposit in Stirling's Repositoryen_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2019-09-13en_UK
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
s12885-015-1167-3.pdfFulltext - Published Version465.04 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

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.