The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening - Evidence from online experiments.
Christian von Wagner, Yasemin Hirst, Jo Waller and 7 others
PMID 30975450WHAT IT FOUND
Among adults disinclined to have bowel scope screening, telling them 8 out of 10 eligible people participate increased intention to screen more than correcting their estimate upward.
Personalised feedback did not add benefit, and attendance was not measured.
Key findings
01In Experiment 1, 6.78% of control participants, 15.06% of participants given the add-3 message, and 25.24% given the 8 out of 10 message stated they would probably or definitely intend to screen.
02In Experiment 1, the standard high uptake message had a larger adjusted effect on intention than the modest increase message (adjusted odds ratios 5.34 and 2.38).
03In Experiment 2, there was no significant difference between the two standard high uptake messages (p = 0.895), so acknowledging the person's own estimate did not add benefit.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The outcome was stated intention after a hypothetical online message, not actual screening attendance. The messages did not reflect real programme uptake, so the authors say they could not be used in field experiments or campaigns. Higher uptake messages were less often believed than the control message, and the role of credibility is unclear. Participants were selected because they were initially disinclined and estimated uptake at 0 to 5 out of 10, so results may not apply to all screening-eligible people. For Experiment 1, the text and table report different control percentages (10.5% versus 6.78%).
Declared interests
Cancer Research UK funded the work. The funding agreement ensured authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. No other conflicts of interest are stated.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that telling patients 8 out of 10 eligible people take part will increase actual screening attendance. The study measured stated intention after a hypothetical message, and the authors say the 8 out of 10 message did not reflect actual programme uptake and should not be used in campaigns.