| Title |
A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-016-3374-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lindsay C. Kobayashi, Jo Waller, Christian von Wagner, Jane Wardle |
| Abstract |
The NHS Cancer Screening Programmes in England now operate a policy of 'informed choice' about participation in cancer screening. Engagement with written information about screening is important to facilitate informed choice, although the degree to which the screening-eligible public engages with the available information is unknown. We examined the association between reading of the standard informational booklet ('Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts') and participation in the nationally organised NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1307 adults who were age-eligible for nationally organised colorectal cancer (CRC; also called bowel cancer) in a population-based survey in England in 2014. Respondents were shown an image of 'The Facts' booklet and were asked how much of it they had read when they received their screening invitation ('none', 'a little', 'some', 'most', 'almost all', or 'all'). Logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between screening uptake status ('never' vs. 'ever') and self-reported reading of 'The Facts' booklet (dichotomised to 'none vs. 'any'), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, and occupation-based social grade. Overall, 69 % of the sample (908/1307) had participated in CRC screening at least once ('ever' screeners). One-fifth of the sample reported that they had read 'none' of 'The Facts' booklet (22 %; 287/1307), while half reported having read 'all' of it (52 %; 680/1307). Reading of the booklet was strongly differential according to screening uptake status: nearly two-thirds of 'never' screeners had read none of 'The Facts' booklet (63 %; 251/399), compared to less than one in twenty 'ever' screeners (4 %; 36/908); adjusted OR = 39.0; 95 % CI: 26.2-58.1 for reading 'none' in 'never' vs. 'ever' screeners. Although 'The Facts' booklet is intended to support informed choices about CRC screening, the majority of unscreened individuals report that they have read none of it. The degree to which public engagement with the decision-making process about cancer screening is socially unequal must be better understood so that comprehensive and equitable public communication strategies can be developed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 31% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 8% |
| Belgium | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 2 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Psychology | 5 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,851,835
of 24,176,645 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,248
of 15,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,800
of 372,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#81
of 356 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,176,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,925 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 356 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.