How is Cervical Cancer Screening Information Communicated in UK Websites? Cross-sectional Analysis of Content and Quantitative Presentation Formats

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2019 Oct 31

PMID 31662361

Citations 4

Authors

Yasmina Okan

Samuel G Smith

Wandi Bruine de Bruin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate whether UK websites about cervical cancer screening targeted to the public include (1) information about benefits and risks of screening, possible screening results and cervical cancer statistics, (2) quantitative presentation formats recommended in the risk communication literature and (3) appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.

Design: Cross-sectional analysis of websites using a comprehensive checklist of information items on screening benefits, risks, possible results and cervical cancer statistics.

Outcome Measures: We recorded the number of websites that contained each of the information items, and the presentation format used for probabilistic information (no quantification provided, verbal quantifiers only, different types of numerical formats and/or graphs). We also recorded the number of websites containing appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.

Setting: Websites were identified through the most common Google search terms used in the UK to find information on cervical screening, according to GoogleTrends and a commercial internet-monitoring programme. Two additional websites were identified by the authors as relevant.

Results: After applying exclusion criteria, 14 websites were evaluated, including websites of public and private health service providers, charities, a medical society and a pharmacy. The websites mentioned different benefits, risks of screening and possible results. However, specific content varied between websites. Probabilistic information was often presented using non-recommended formats, including relative risk reductions to express screening benefits, and verbal quantifiers without numbers to express risks. Appeals for participation were present in most websites, with almost half also mentioning informed decision-making.

Conclusions: UK websites about cervical cancer screening were generally balanced. However, benefits and risks were presented using different formats, potentially hindering comparisons. Additionally, recommendations from the literature to facilitate understanding of quantitative information and facilitate informed decisions were often not followed. Designing websites that adhere to existing recommendations may support informed screening uptake.

Citing Articles

Factors Associated with Website Operation among Small Hospitals and Medical and Dental Clinics in Korea.

Park Y, Kim Y, Kim K Healthc Inform Res. 2022; 28(4):355-363.

PMID: 36380432 PMC: 9672489. DOI: 10.4258/hir.2022.28.4.355.

Encouragement of cervical cancer screening via an evolutionary theoretical approach: A randomized controlled study in Japan.

Okuhara T, Okada H, Goto E, Tsunezumi A, Kagawa Y, Kiuchi T Prev Med Rep. 2022; 27:101818.

PMID: 35656222 PMC: 9152791. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101818.

Information in Spanish on the Internet about the Prevention of COVID-19.

Hernandez-Garcia I, Gimenez-Julvez T Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(21).

PMID: 33171724 PMC: 7664387. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17218228.

[Assessing the quality of digital health services: How can informed decisions be promoted?].

Rebitschek F, Gigerenzer G Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2020; 63(6):665-673.

PMID: 32424555 DOI: 10.1007/s00103-020-03146-3.

References

Bodemer N, Meder B, Gigerenzer G . Communicating Relative Risk Changes with Baseline Risk: Presentation Format and Numeracy Matter. Med Decis Making. 2014; 34(5):615-26. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14526305. View

Rychetnik L, Carter S, Abelson J, Thornton H, Barratt A, Entwistle V . Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013; 105(6):380-6. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs649. View

Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A, Hibbard J, Mertz C . Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev. 2007; 64(2):169-90. DOI: 10.1177/10775587070640020301. View

Brodersen J, Schwartz L, Heneghan C, OSullivan J, Aronson J, Woloshin S . Overdiagnosis: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018; 23(1):1-3. DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110886. View

Ghanouni A, Renzi C, Waller J . Improving public understanding of 'overdiagnosis' in England: a population survey assessing familiarity with possible terms for labelling the concept and perceptions of appropriate terminology. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(6):e021260. PMC: 6020944. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021260. View

McCredie M, Sharples K, Paul C, Baranyai J, Medley G, Jones R . Natural history of cervical neoplasia and risk of invasive cancer in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 3: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2008; 9(5):425-34. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70103-7. View

Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely E . Designing Visual Aids That Promote Risk Literacy: A Systematic Review of Health Research and Evidence-Based Design Heuristics. Hum Factors. 2017; 59(4):582-627. DOI: 10.1177/0018720817690634. View

Gurmankin A, Baron J, Armstrong K . The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Med Decis Making. 2004; 24(3):265-71. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04265482. View

Jorgensen K, Gotzsche P . Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography. BMJ. 2006; 332(7540):538-41. PMC: 1388137. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.332.7540.538. View

10.

Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz L, Woloshin S . Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2015; 8(2):53-96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2008.00033.x. View

11.

Schapira M, Nattinger A, McHorney C . Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making. 2002; 21(6):459-67. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X0102100604. View

12.

Tainio K, Athanasiou A, Tikkinen K, Aaltonen R, Cardenas J, Hernandes . Clinical course of untreated cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 under active surveillance: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018; 360:k499. PMC: 5826010. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k499. View

13.

Ghanouni A, Meisel S, Hersch J, Waller J, Wardle J, Renzi C . Information on 'Overdiagnosis' in Breast Cancer Screening on Prominent United Kingdom- and Australia-Oriented Health Websites. PLoS One. 2016; 11(3):e0152279. PMC: 4807105. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152279. View

14.

Zikmund-Fisher B . Continued use of 1-in-X Risk communications is a systemic problem. Med Decis Making. 2013; 34(4):412-3. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13516198. View

15.

Waller J, Whitaker K, Winstanley K, Power E, Wardle J . A survey study of women's responses to information about overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening in Britain. Br J Cancer. 2014; 111(9):1831-5. PMC: 4453735. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.482. View

16.

Dieng M, Trevena L, Turner R, Wadolowski M, McCaffery K . What Australian women want and when they want it: cervical screening testing preferences, decision-making styles and information needs. Health Expect. 2011; 16(2):177-88. PMC: 5060652. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00707.x. View

17.

Pighin S, Savadori L, Barilli E, Galbiati S, Smid M, Ferrari M . Communicating Down syndrome risk according to maternal age: "1-in-X" effect on perceived risk. Prenat Diagn. 2015; 35(8):777-82. DOI: 10.1002/pd.4606. View

18.

Sladakovic J, Jansen J, Hersch J, Turner R, McCaffery K . The differential effects of presenting uncertainty around benefits and harms on treatment decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2016; 99(6):974-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.009. View

19.

Prasad V, Lenzer J, Newman D . Why cancer screening has never been shown to "save lives"--and what we can do about it. BMJ. 2016; 352:h6080. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h6080. View

20.

Cheng C, Dunn M . How well are health information websites displayed on mobile phones? Implications for the readability of health information. Health Promot J Austr. 2016; 28(1):15-20. DOI: 10.1071/HE15127. View