↓ Skip to main content

A randomised controlled trial of personalised decision support delivered via the internet for bowel cancer screening with a faecal occult blood test: the effects of tailoring of messages according to…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A randomised controlled trial of personalised decision support delivered via the internet for bowel cancer screening with a faecal occult blood test: the effects of tailoring of messages according to social cognitive variables on participation
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0147-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlene J Wilson, Ingrid HK Flight, Deborah Turnbull, Tess Gregory, Stephen R Cole, Graeme P Young, Ian T Zajac

Abstract

In Australia, bowel cancer screening participation using faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is low. Decision support tailored to psychological predictors of participation may increase screening. The study compared tailored computerised decision support to non-tailored computer or paper information. The primary outcome was FOBT return within 12 weeks. Additional analyses were conducted on movement in decision to screen and change on psychological variables. A parallel, randomised controlled, trial invited 25,511 people aged 50-74 years to complete an eligibility questionnaire. Eligible respondents (n = 3,408) were assigned to Tailored Personalised Decision Support (TPDS), Non-Tailored PDS (NTPDS), or Control (CG) (intention-to-treat, ITT sample). TPDS and NTPDS groups completed an on-line baseline survey (BS) and accessed generic information. The TPDS group additionally received a tailored intervention. CG participants completed a paper BS only. Those completing the BS (n = 2270) were mailed an FOBT and requested to complete an endpoint survey (ES) that re-measured BS variables (per-protocol, PP sample). FOBT return: In the ITT sample, there was no significant difference between any group (χ (2)(2) = 2.57, p = .26; TPDS, 32.5%; NTPDS, 33%; and CG, 34.5%). In the PP sample, FOBT return in the internet groups was significantly higher than the paper group (χ (2)(2) = 17.01, p < .001; TPDS, 80%; NTPDS, 83%; and CG, 74%). FOBT completion by TPDS and NTPDS did not differ (χ (2)(1) = 2.23, p = .13). Age was positively associated with kit return. Decision to screen: 2227/2270 of the PP sample provided complete BS data. Participants not wanting to screen at baseline (1083/2227) and allocated to TPDS and NTPDS were significantly more likely to decide to screen and return an FOBT than those assigned to the CG. FOBT return by TPDS and NTPDS did not differ from one another (OR = 1.16, p = .42). Change on psychosocial predictors: Analysis of change indicated that salience and coherence of screening and self-efficacy were improved and faecal aversion decreased by tailored messaging. Online information resources may have a role in encouraging internet-enabled people who are uncommitted to screening to change their attitudes, perceptions and behaviour. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12610000095066.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 22%
Psychology 14 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Computer Science 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 19 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,199,636
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#945
of 1,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,515
of 264,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#20
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,987 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 264,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.