Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman’s responses?

Zikmund‐Fisher, Brian J.; Fagerlin, Angela; Keeton, Kristie; Ubel, Peter A.

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.076

Cited by 37 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other research 22 has found that depicting statistical information in pictographs reduced medical patients' reliance on anecdotes when making decisions, and another study 23 found that evaluative labels (e.g, "normal," "positive") presented with prenatal screening test results were better able to influence risk perceptions and behavioral intentions than were numbers.…”

Section: Communicating Health Information: Simplicity and Framingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Use of Psychology and Behavioral Economics to Promote Healthy Eating

Roberto¹,

Kawachi²

2014

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the psychology of how people make decisions can shed light on important factors contributing to the cause and maintenance of public health problems like obesity. This knowledge can and should inform the design of government and private-sector public health interventions. Several insights from psychology and behavioral economics that help explain why people are particularly vulnerable to the current food environment are discussed. These insights fall into the following categories: the influence of starting points (status quo bias and anchoring effects); communicating health information (simplicity and framing); and unintended consequences of policy interventions (compensation, substitution, and the peanuts effect). The paper discusses opportunities for improving the design of food policies and interventions by altering default options, providing the public with simple and meaningful nutrition information, carefully constructing the framing of public health messages, and designing food policies to minimize unintended consequences, such as compensation and substitution.

show abstract

Section: Communicating Health Information: Simplicity and Framingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Use of Psychology and Behavioral Economics to Promote Healthy Eating

Roberto¹,

Kawachi²

2014

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Category labels may also assist decision makers by making options easier to evaluate; their power has long been recognized by social psychologists (e.g., Allport, 1954). Zikmund-Fisher, Fagerlin, Keeton, and Ubel (2007) harnessed this power by providing labels such as "normal" or "positive" to prenatal screening test results and found that they influenced risk perceptions and behavioral intentions more than numbers alone. Although information providers are sometimes reluctant to provide labels that categorize and provide an evaluation of the meaning of numeric information (whether due to a desire to allow consumers the freedom to assess the information, a concern about possible litigation, or companies that like to receive positive but not negative scores), it may be that the absence of such labels means that numeric information will not be used.…”

Section: Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, evaluative categories could add, not just meaning, but affective meaning to numeric information (Zikmund-Fisher et al, 2007). Affect has been proposed as a key component in the construction of values and preferences (Kahneman, Schkade, & Sunstein, 1998;Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001;Slovic et al, 2002).…”

Section: Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing meaning to numbers: The impact of evaluative categories on decisions.

Peters¹,

Dieckmann²,

Västfjäll³

et al. 2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

152

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decision makers are often quite poor at using numeric information in decisions. The results of 4 experiments demonstrate that a manipulation of evaluative meaning (i.e., the extent to which an attribute can be mapped onto a good/bad scale; this manipulation is accomplished through the addition of visual boundary lines and evaluative labels to a graphical format) has a robust influence in health judgments and choices and across diverse adult populations. The manipulation resulted in greater use of numeric quality-of-care information in judgments and less reliance on an irrelevant affective state among the less numerate. Recall results for provided quality-of-care numbers suggested that the manipulation did not influence depth of number processing with the exception of cost information that was not remembered as well. Results of a reaction-time paradigm revealed that feelings were more accessible than thoughts in the presence of the manipulation, suggesting that the effect may be due, at least in part, to an affective mechanism. Numeric information is often provided in decisions, but may not be usable by consumers without assistance from information providers. Implications for consumer decision making and the functions of affect are discussed.

show abstract

“…This approach has been used successfully in previous research. [125][126][127] Findings broadly indicate that comprehension of the information is improved, particularly for people with low numeracy. 128 Furthermore, the same study suggested that evaluative categories can increase deliberative processing of the numerical information.…”

Section: Numerical Informationmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Numerical descriptors may also increase perceptions of risk and, as a result, may be more effective at altering behaviour than numerical information in isolation. 127 In line with current evidence, natural frequencies with the same denominator were used to present key numerical information. 129 …”

Section: Numerical Informationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Testing innovative strategies to reduce the social gradient in the uptake of bowel cancer screening: a programme of four qualitatively enhanced randomised controlled trials

Raine

Atkin

Wagner

et al. 2017

Programme Grants Appl Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To reduce socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of the NHS BCSP ’ s guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) without compromising uptake in any socioeconomic group. Design: Workstream 1 explored psychosocial determinants of non-uptake of gFOBt in focus groups and interviews. Workstream 2 developed and tested four theoretically based interventions: (1) ‘ gist ’ information, (2) a ‘ narrative ’ leaflet, (3) ‘ general practice endorsement ’ (GPE) and (4) an ‘ enhanced reminder ’ (ER). Workstream 3 comprised four national cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the cost-effectiveness of each intervention. Methods: Interventions were co-designed with user panels, user tested using interviews and focus groups, and piloted with postal questionnaires. RCTs compared ‘ usual care ’ (existing NHS BCSP invitations) with usual care plus each intervention. The four trials tested: (1) ‘ gist ’ leaflet ( n = 163,525), (2) ‘ narrative ’ leaflet ( n = 150,417), (3) GPE on the invitation letter ( n = 265,434) and (4) ER ( n = 168,480). Randomisation was based on day of mailing of the screening invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score associated with each individual ’ s home address was used as the marker of socioeconomic circumstances (SECs). Change in the socioeconomic gradient in uptake (interaction between treatment group and IMD quintile) was the primary outcome. Screening uptake was defined as the return of a gFOBt kit within 18 weeks of the invitation that led to a ‘ definitive ’ test result of either ‘ normal ’ (i.e. no further investigation required) or ‘ abnormal ’ (i.e. requiring referral for further testing). Difference in overall uptake was the secondary outcome. Results: The gist and narrative trials showed no effect on the SECs gradient or overall uptake (57.6% and 56.7%, respectively, compared with 57.3% and 58.5%, respectively, for usual care; all p -values > 0.05). GPE showed no effect on the gradient ( p = 0.5) but increased overall uptake [58.2% vs. 57.5% in usual care, odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.10; p < 0.0001]. ER showed a significant interaction with SECs ( p = 0.005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived IMD quintile (14.1% vs. 13.3% in usual care, OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; p = 0.003) than the least deprived (34.7% vs. 34.9% in usual care OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; p = 0.98), and higher overall uptake (25.8% vs. 25.1% in usual care, OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11; p = 0.001). All interventions were inexpensive to provide. Limitations: In line with NHS policy, the gist and narrative leaflets supplemented rather than replaced existing NHS BCSP information. This may have undermined their effect. Conclusions: Enhanced reminder reduced the gradient and modestly increased overall uptake, whereas GPE increased overall uptake but did not reduce the gradient. Therefore, given their effectiveness and very low cost, the findings suggest that implementation of both by the NHS BCSP would be beneficial. The gist and narrative results hig...

show abstract

Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman’s responses?

Cited by 37 publications

References 27 publications

Use of Psychology and Behavioral Economics to Promote Healthy Eating

Use of Psychology and Behavioral Economics to Promote Healthy Eating

Bringing meaning to numbers: The impact of evaluative categories on decisions.

Testing innovative strategies to reduce the social gradient in the uptake of bowel cancer screening: a programme of four qualitatively enhanced randomised controlled trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About