Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/30225
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRobb, Kathrynen_UK
dc.contributor.authorGatting, Lauren Pen_UK
dc.contributor.authorvon Wagner, Christianen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMcGregor, Lesley Men_UK
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-03T00:01:09Z-
dc.date.available2019-10-03T00:01:09Z-
dc.date.issued2020-03en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/30225-
dc.description.abstractBackground: In the United Kingdom, cancer screening invitations are mailed with information styled in a standard, didactic way to allow for informed choice. Information processing theory suggests this ‘standard-style’ could be more appealing to people who prefer deliberative thinking. People less likely to engage in deliberative thinking may be disenfranchised by the design of current standard-style information. Purpose: To examine the distribution of preference for deliberative thinking across demographic groups (Study 1), and explore associations between preference for deliberative thinking and perceived usefulness of standard- and narrative-style screening information (Study 2). Methods: Study 1, adults aged 45-59 (n = 4,241) were mailed a questionnaire via primary care assessing preference for deliberative thinking and demographic characteristics. Study 2, a separate cohort of adults aged 45-59 (n = 2,058) were mailed standard- and narrative-style leaflets, and a questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics, preference for deliberative thinking and perceived leaflet usefulness. Data were analysed using multiple regression. Results: In Studies 1 (n=1,783) and 2 (n=650), having lower socioeconomic status, being a women and of non-white ethnicity was associated with lower preference for deliberative thinking. In Study 2, the standard-style leaflet was perceived as less useful among participants with lower preference for deliberative thinking, while perceived usefulness of the narrative-style leaflet did not differ by preference for deliberative thinking. Conclusions: Information leaflets using a standard-style may disadvantage women and those experiencing greater socio-economic deprivation. More work is required to identify design styles that have a greater appeal for people with low preference for deliberative thinking.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_UK
dc.relationRobb K, Gatting LP, von Wagner C & McGregor LM (2020) Preference for deliberation and perceived usefulness of standard- and narrative-style leaflet designs: Implications for equitable cancer-screening communication. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 54 (3), p. 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaz039en_UK
dc.rightsThis item has been embargoed for a period. During the embargo please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study. This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Annals of Behavioral Medicine following peer review. The version of record Kathryn A Robb, PhD, Lauren P Gatting, BSc, Christian von Wagner, PhD, Lesley M McGregor, PhD, Preference for Deliberation and Perceived Usefulness of Standard- and Narrative-Style Leaflet Designs: Implications for Equitable Cancer-Screening Communication, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Volume 54, Issue 3, March 2020, Pages 193–201, is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaz039en_UK
dc.subjectcolorectal canceren_UK
dc.subjectcancer screeningen_UK
dc.subjectdecision makingen_UK
dc.subjecthuman information processingen_UK
dc.subjectdual-process theoryen_UK
dc.titlePreference for deliberation and perceived usefulness of standard- and narrative-style leaflet designs: Implications for equitable cancer-screening communicationen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2020-10-10en_UK
dc.rights.embargoreason[Manuscript_4_for GUlib.pdf] Until this work is published there will be an embargo on the full text of this work. Publisher requires embargo of 12 months after formal publication.en_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/abm/kaz039en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid31595299en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleAnnals of Behavioral Medicineen_UK
dc.citation.issn1532-4796en_UK
dc.citation.issn0883-6612en_UK
dc.citation.volume54en_UK
dc.citation.issue3en_UK
dc.citation.spage193en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusAM - Accepted Manuscripten_UK
dc.contributor.funderCancer Research UKen_UK
dc.author.emaill.m.mcgregor@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date09/10/2019en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Glasgowen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Glasgowen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPsychologyen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000546247400005en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-85080853205en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1457956en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-7093-1391en_UK
dc.date.accepted2019-08-07en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-08-07en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2019-10-02en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionAMen_UK
local.rioxx.authorRobb, Kathryn|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorGatting, Lauren P|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorvon Wagner, Christian|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMcGregor, Lesley M|0000-0002-7093-1391en_UK
local.rioxx.projectProject ID unknown|Cancer Research UK|http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000289en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2020-10-10en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserved||2020-10-09en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved|2020-10-10|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameManuscript_4_for GUlib.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1532-4796en_UK
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Manuscript_4_for GUlib.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version486.01 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.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

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.