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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Apr;38(2):261-72.
doi: 10.1007/s10865-014-9596-z. Epub 2014 Sep 25.

The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial

Samuel G Smith et al. J Behav Med. 2015 Apr.

Abstract

Guided by Fuzzy Trace Theory, this study examined the impact of a 'Gist-based' leaflet on colorectal cancer screening knowledge and intentions; and tested the interaction with participants' numerical ability. Adults aged 45-59 years from four UK general practices were randomly assigned to receive standard information ('The Facts', n = 2,216) versus standard information plus 'The Gist' leaflet (Gist + Facts, n = 2,236). Questionnaires were returned by 964/4,452 individuals (22 %). 82 % of respondents reported having read the information, but those with poor numeracy were less likely (74 vs. 88 %, p < .001). The 'Gist + Facts' group were more likely to reach the criterion for adequate knowledge (95 vs. 91 %; p < .01), but this was not moderated by numeracy. Most respondents (98 %) intended to participate in screening, with no group differences and no interaction with numeracy. The improved levels of knowledge and self-reported reading suggest 'The Gist' leaflet may increase engagement with colorectal cancer screening, but ceiling effects reduced the likelihood that screening intentions would be affected.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Consort diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Proportion of participants who reported reading at least some of their allocated materials by numeracy group

References

    1. Atkin W, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, Wooldrage K, Hart AR, Northover JM, Cuzick J. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: A multicentre randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2010;375:1624–1633. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60551-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Austoker J, Giordano L, Hewitson P, Villain P. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition—Communication. Endoscopy. 2012;44:S164–S185. - PubMed
    1. Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2011;155:97–107. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boxell EM, Smith SG, Morris M, Kummer S, Rowlands G, Waller J, Simon AE. Increasing awareness of gynecological cancer symptoms and reducing barriers to medical help seeking: Does health literacy play a role? Journal of Health Communication. 2012;17:S265–S279. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2012.712617. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cairns CP, Viswanath K. Communication and colorectal cancer screening among the uninsured: Data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (United States) Cancer Causes and Control. 2006;17:1115–1125. doi: 10.1007/s10552-006-0046-2. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources