Open AccessHow do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think‐aloud study
Author(s) -
Smith Samuel G.,
Vart Gemma,
Wolf Michael S.,
Obichere Austin,
Baker Helen J.,
Raine Rosalind,
Wardle Jane,
Wagner Christian
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.12117
Subject(s) - think aloud protocol , comprehension , thematic analysis , psychology , terminology , health literacy , medical terminology , medicine , psychosocial , medical education , qualitative research , nursing , computer science , psychotherapist , health care , linguistics , usability , social science , philosophy , human–computer interaction , sociology , economics , programming language , economic growth
Background The English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme biennially invites individuals aged 60–74 to participate in screening. The booklet, ‘ B owel C ancer S creening: The F acts' 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 B owel C ancer S creening P rogramme 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.