Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct;18(5):703-14.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12117. Epub 2013 Aug 5.

How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think-aloud study

Samuel G Smith  1 , Gemma Vart  1 , Michael S Wolf  2 , Austin Obichere  3 , Helen J Baker  4 , Rosalind Raine  5 , Jane Wardle  1 , Christian von Wagner  1
Affiliations

How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think-aloud study

Samuel G Smith et al. Health Expect. 2015 Oct.

Abstract

Background: The English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme biennially invites individuals aged 60-74 to participate in screening. The booklet, 'Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts' accompanies this invitation. Its primary aim is to inform potential participants about the aims, advantages and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening.

Objective: To provide detailed commentary on how individuals process the information contained within 'The Facts' booklet.

Design, setting and participants: This study comprised of 18 interviews with individuals aged 45-60 and used a 'think-aloud' paradigm in which participants read aloud the booklet. Participant utterances (verbal statements made in response to researcher-led prompts) were transcribed and analysed using a combination of content and thematic analysis.

Results: A total of 776 coded utterances were analysed (mean = 43.1 per person; range = 8-95). While overall comprehension was satisfactory, several problem areas were identified such as the use of complex unfamiliar terminology and the presentation of numerical information. Specific sections such as colonoscopy risk information evoked negative emotional responses. Participants made several suggestions for ways in which comprehension might be improved.

Conclusion: Public perceptions of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme information materials indicated that specific aspects of the booklet were difficult to process. These materials may be an appropriate target to improve public understanding of the aims, benefits and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. These findings will contribute to a broader NIHR-funded project that aims to design a supplementary 'gist-based' information leaflet suitable for low literacy populations.

Keywords: cancer screening; colorectal cancer; fuzzy-trace theory; literacy; patient information; think aloud.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant instructions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Typology of participant utterances.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Office for National Statistics . Mortality Statistics: Deaths Registered in 2010, England and Wales. London: Office for National Statistics, 2011.
    1. General Register Office for Scotland . Deaths Time Series Data, Deaths in Scotland in 2011. General Register Office for Scotland, 2011. Available at: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/theme/vital-events/deaths/time..., accessed 30 July 2013.
    1. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency . Registrar General Annual Report. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, 2011. Available at: http://www.nisra.gov.uk/demography/default.asp50.htm, accessed 30 July 2013.
    1. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Towler B, Watson E. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007; CD001216. - PMC - PubMed
    1. von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R et al Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. International Journal of Epidemiology, 2011; 40: 712–718. - PubMed

Publication types