↓ Skip to main content

The impact of supplementary narrative-based information on colorectal cancer screening beliefs and intention

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
The impact of supplementary narrative-based information on colorectal cancer screening beliefs and intention
Published in
BMC Cancer, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1167-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lesley M McGregor, Christian von Wagner, Gemma Vart, Wing Chee Yuen, Rosalind Raine, Jane Wardle, Kathryn A Robb

Abstract

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. 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. 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. An additional narrative leaflet had a positive impact on beliefs about CRC screening which led to stronger screening intentions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 27%
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 7 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 23 March 2015.
All research outputs
#4,104,906
of 4,907,248 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,208
of 2,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,381
of 145,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#122
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,907,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,768 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 145,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.