IMPROVING CANCER SCREENING INFORMATION: INSIGHTS FROM INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN INFORMATION PROCESSING

Purpose: In the UK, cancer screening invitations are sent with fact-based, numerical information about the test. Such information requires deliberation. This approach may disenfranchise particular sections of the community who are less likely to engage with deliberative processing. Screening information that includes patient experiences or stories may help to engage individuals in this instance. This paper describes two studies that explored associations between preference for deliberative vs intuitive processing, and the perceived value of fact- vs experience-based screening information. 

Method(s): In Study 1, a sample of adults (N=4,241), approaching the age that colorectal cancer screening is offered in England (45-59 years), identified from patient lists of four south-east England General Practices, were mailed a survey including measures of deliberation, intuition and demographic characteristics. In Study 2, a sample of adults (N=4,125),  also aged (45-59 years), identified from  lists of a further three selected English General Practices, were also mailed a survey including measures of deliberative and intuitive processing and demographic characteristics.  Participants were also provided with two formats of screening information: ‘Bowel Screening: The Facts’ and ‘Bowel Cancer Screening: People’s Stories’ and asked to evaluate their usefulness.

Result(s): Response rates were 44% (Study 1) and 30.5% (Study 2). In both Studies 1 and 2, a stronger preference for deliberation was associated with being male, more educated and white, while a preference for intuitive thinking was not consistently associated with demographic factors in multivariable analyses.  In Study 2, fact-based screening information was perceived as more useful by people who preferred a deliberative style of processing, while experience-based information was perceived to be equally useful across the board.  Preference for intuitive thinking was not associated with perceived usefulness of either type of information.

Conclusion(s): Consideration should be given to individual differences in information processing when informing people about cancer screening.