评估媒体报道 NordICC 试验对公众关于结肠镜检查大肠癌筛查观点的影响。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Eden Sharabi, Kushagra Mathur, So Yung Choi, Barbara Hollander, Brennan Spiegel, Christopher V Almario
{"title":"评估媒体报道 NordICC 试验对公众关于结肠镜检查大肠癌筛查观点的影响。","authors":"Eden Sharabi, Kushagra Mathur, So Yung Choi, Barbara Hollander, Brennan Spiegel, Christopher V Almario","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Screening tests like colonoscopy can prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), yet their effectiveness is often questioned. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial demonstrated that colonoscopy significantly reduces CRC incidence and mortality in per-protocol analysis. However, media coverage of the trial often focused on intention-to-screen findings that showed no change in mortality, possibly contributing to public confusion about colonoscopy benefits. This study aimed to assess whether such media articles undermined public perception and intent to undergo colonoscopic screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited a US nationally representative sample of unscreened adults aged 45 to 75 years at average CRC risk. Respondents were randomized 1:1 to read either a low-quality or high-quality article on NordICC, as rated by a panel of gastroenterologists. Before and after reading their article, participants reported whether they plan to be screened for CRC with a colonoscopy. Our primary outcome was a negative change in intent to undergo colonoscopic screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 2013 participants who completed the survey, 1531 (76.1%) stated they planned to undergo colonoscopy or were undecided before reading the article. After reading the media report, 90 (12.0%) people in the low-quality article arm no longer planned to undergo colonoscopy versus 73 (9.3%) in the high-quality article arm; the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.08).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A widely promulgated article about NordICC rated as low-quality did not differentially impact attitudes towards colonoscopic CRC screening compared with another mainstream article rated as high-quality. Our study provides reassurance that most people will not summarily change health behaviors after reading a single article, regardless of perceived accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Impact of Media Coverage of the NordICC Trial on Public Perspectives on Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.\",\"authors\":\"Eden Sharabi, Kushagra Mathur, So Yung Choi, Barbara Hollander, Brennan Spiegel, Christopher V Almario\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Screening tests like colonoscopy can prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), yet their effectiveness is often questioned. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial demonstrated that colonoscopy significantly reduces CRC incidence and mortality in per-protocol analysis. However, media coverage of the trial often focused on intention-to-screen findings that showed no change in mortality, possibly contributing to public confusion about colonoscopy benefits. This study aimed to assess whether such media articles undermined public perception and intent to undergo colonoscopic screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited a US nationally representative sample of unscreened adults aged 45 to 75 years at average CRC risk. Respondents were randomized 1:1 to read either a low-quality or high-quality article on NordICC, as rated by a panel of gastroenterologists. Before and after reading their article, participants reported whether they plan to be screened for CRC with a colonoscopy. Our primary outcome was a negative change in intent to undergo colonoscopic screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 2013 participants who completed the survey, 1531 (76.1%) stated they planned to undergo colonoscopy or were undecided before reading the article. After reading the media report, 90 (12.0%) people in the low-quality article arm no longer planned to undergo colonoscopy versus 73 (9.3%) in the high-quality article arm; the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.08).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>A widely promulgated article about NordICC rated as low-quality did not differentially impact attitudes towards colonoscopic CRC screening compared with another mainstream article rated as high-quality. Our study provides reassurance that most people will not summarily change health behaviors after reading a single article, regardless of perceived accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002144\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002144","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

结肠镜检查等筛查检查可以预防结直肠癌(CRC),但其有效性经常受到质疑。北欧-欧洲结直肠癌倡议(NordICC)试验表明,结肠镜检查可显著降低CRC的发病率和死亡率。然而,媒体对试验的报道往往集中在有意筛查的结果上,显示死亡率没有变化,这可能导致公众对结肠镜检查的好处感到困惑。本研究旨在评估此类媒体文章是否会破坏公众对结肠镜筛查的认知和意图。方法:我们招募了一个具有美国全国代表性的样本,年龄在45至75岁之间,平均CRC风险。受访者被随机1:1阅读低质量或高质量的文章NordICC,由胃肠病学家小组评定。在阅读他们的文章之前和之后,参与者报告了他们是否计划用结肠镜检查结直肠癌。我们的主要结局是接受结肠镜筛查的意向发生了负面变化。结果:在2013名完成调查的参与者中,1531人(76.1%)表示在阅读文章前计划进行结肠镜检查或尚未决定。在阅读媒体报道后,低质量文献组中有90人(12.0%)不再计划接受结肠镜检查,而高质量文献组中有73人(9.3%)不再计划接受结肠镜检查;差异无统计学意义(P=0.08)。讨论:一篇被广泛传播的关于NordICC被评为低质量的文章与另一篇被评为高质量的主流文章相比,对结肠镜下结直肠癌筛查的态度没有差异。我们的研究提供了保证,大多数人不会在阅读了一篇文章后立即改变健康行为,无论其感知的准确性如何。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the Impact of Media Coverage of the NordICC Trial on Public Perspectives on Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Introduction: Screening tests like colonoscopy can prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), yet their effectiveness is often questioned. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial demonstrated that colonoscopy significantly reduces CRC incidence and mortality in per-protocol analysis. However, media coverage of the trial often focused on intention-to-screen findings that showed no change in mortality, possibly contributing to public confusion about colonoscopy benefits. This study aimed to assess whether such media articles undermined public perception and intent to undergo colonoscopic screening.

Methods: We recruited a US nationally representative sample of unscreened adults aged 45 to 75 years at average CRC risk. Respondents were randomized 1:1 to read either a low-quality or high-quality article on NordICC, as rated by a panel of gastroenterologists. Before and after reading their article, participants reported whether they plan to be screened for CRC with a colonoscopy. Our primary outcome was a negative change in intent to undergo colonoscopic screening.

Results: Among the 2013 participants who completed the survey, 1531 (76.1%) stated they planned to undergo colonoscopy or were undecided before reading the article. After reading the media report, 90 (12.0%) people in the low-quality article arm no longer planned to undergo colonoscopy versus 73 (9.3%) in the high-quality article arm; the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.08).

Discussion: A widely promulgated article about NordICC rated as low-quality did not differentially impact attitudes towards colonoscopic CRC screening compared with another mainstream article rated as high-quality. Our study provides reassurance that most people will not summarily change health behaviors after reading a single article, regardless of perceived accuracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信