Effects of Telephone Intervention and Nudging Information on Cancer Screening Behavior
Effects of Telephone Intervention and Nudging Information on Cancer Screening Behavior: A Randomized Clinical Study
Objectives: Telephone interventions are often delivered to promote cancer screening for early detection and treatment. However, the effects of nudging information provided in telephone interventions on cancer screening behavior remain unclear. Accordingly, this study investigated the effects of telephone-delivered nudging information regarding screening benefits and social norms on cancer screening behavior.
Methods: This randomized controlled trial included 1,200 community-dwelling individuals meeting screening criteria for colorectal, breast, cervical, or oral cancer. Participants were assigned to one of four groups: telephone benefits, telephone social norms, telephone reminder, and letter reminder. The dependent variable was cancer screening behavior within 6 months after the intervention.
研究概览
地位
研究类型
注册 (实际的)
阶段
- 不适用
联系人和位置
学习地点
-
-
-
Tainan、台湾、701
- National Cheng Kung University
-
-
参与标准
资格标准
适合学习的年龄
接受健康志愿者
有资格学习的性别
描述
Inclusion Criteria:
- Community-dwelling individuals who met the criteria for cancer screening outlined by the Health Promotion Administration under Taiwan's Ministry of Health and Welfare were recruited. Participants were required to have sufficient communication ability and the ability to receive a telephone interview.
- colorectal cancer: people aged 50 to 74 years who have not received a fecal occult blood test within the past 2 years;
- breast cancer: women aged 45 to 69 years or those aged 40 to 44 years with a family history of breast cancer who have not received a mammography within the previous 2 years;
- cervical cancer: women aged over 30 years who have not received a pap smear test within the past 3 years; and
- oral cancer: the general people aged over 30 years or indigenous residents of Taiwan aged over 18 years with a history of chewing betel nut or smoking who have not received an oral mucosal examination within the past 2 years.
Exclusion Criteria:
- This study did not consider individuals with severe cognitive impairment or a previous cancer diagnosis, as indicated by chart records.
学习计划
研究是如何设计的？
设计细节
- 主要用途：放映
- 分配：随机化
- 介入模型：并行分配
- 屏蔽：单身的
武器和干预
参与者组/臂 |
干预/治疗 |
|---|---|
|
实验性的：telephone benefits group
|
In the intervention, participants were provided with three categories of information: (1) the reasons why they were receiving the information (delivered by telephone or letter), that is, information regarding the criteria they met, such as their age or lack of screening history within a certain time period; (2) reasons why they should undergo screening, including nudging information related to benefits or social norms; and (3) a description of how they could make cancer screening appointments. In the telephone benefits group, key information regarding the benefits of cancer screening was provided with consideration of the health belief model (Lau et al., 2020). |
|
实验性的：telephone social norms group
|
In the intervention, participants were provided with three categories of information: (1) the reasons why they were receiving the information (delivered by telephone or letter), that is, information regarding the criteria they met, such as their age or lack of screening history within a certain time period; (2) reasons why they should undergo screening, including nudging information related to benefits or social norms; and (3) a description of how they could make cancer screening appointments. In the telephone social norms group, the following were provided with consideration of the theory of planned behavior (Ritchie et al., 2021). |
|
有源比较器：telephone reminder group
|
In the intervention, participants were provided with three categories of information: (1) the reasons why they were receiving the information (delivered by telephone or letter), that is, information regarding the criteria they met, such as their age or lack of screening history within a certain time period; (2) reasons why they should undergo screening, including nudging information related to benefits or social norms; and (3) a description of how they could make cancer screening appointments. The telephone reminder group only received the first and third types of information. |
|
有源比较器：letter reminder group
|
In the intervention, participants were provided with three categories of information: (1) the reasons why they were receiving the information (delivered by telephone or letter), that is, information regarding the criteria they met, such as their age or lack of screening history within a certain time period; (2) reasons why they should undergo screening, including nudging information related to benefits or social norms; and (3) a description of how they could make cancer screening appointments. The letter reminder group only received the first and third types of information. |
研究衡量的是什么？
主要结果指标
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
|---|---|---|
|
Cancer behavior
大体时间：From enrollment to the end of treatment at 6 months.
|
The primary outcome is whether the participants completed cancer screening or not (yes or no) |
From enrollment to the end of treatment at 6 months.
|
合作者和调查者
出版物和有用的链接
一般刊物
- Hopewell S, Chan AW, Collins GS, Hrobjartsson A, Moher D, Schulz KF, Tunn R, Aggarwal R, Berkwits M, Berlin JA, Bhandari N, Butcher NJ, Campbell MK, Chidebe RCW, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Fergusson DA, Golub RM, Goodman SN, Hoffmann TC, Ioannidis JPA, Kahan BC, Knowles RL, Lamb SE, Lewis S, Loder E, Offringa M, Ravaud P, Richards DP, Rockhold FW, Schriger DL, Siegfried NL, Staniszewska S, Taylor RS, Thabane L, Torgerson D, Vohra S, White IR, Boutron I. CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ. 2025 Apr 14;389:e081123. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2024-081123.
- Klein, W. M. (2003). Self-prescriptive, perceived, and actual attention to comparative risk information. Psychology & Health, 18(5), 625-643. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044031000118465
- Tsipa A, O'Connor DB, Branley-Bell D, Day F, Hall LH, Sykes-Muskett B, Wilding S, Taylor N, Conner M. Promoting colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of interventions to increase uptake. Health Psychol Rev. 2021 Sep;15(3):371-394. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2020.1760726. Epub 2020 May 13.
- Singer E, Couper MP, Fagerlin A, Fowler FJ, Levin CA, Ubel PA, Van Hoewyk J, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. The role of perceived benefits and costs in patients' medical decisions. Health Expect. 2014 Feb;17(1):4-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00739.x. Epub 2011 Nov 10.
- Ritchie D, Van den Broucke S, Van Hal G. The health belief model and theory of planned behavior applied to mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Public Health Nurs. 2021 May;38(3):482-492. doi: 10.1111/phn.12842. Epub 2020 Nov 30.
- Ploug T, Holm S. Doctors, Patients, and Nudging in the Clinical Context--Four Views on Nudging and Informed Consent. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15(10):28-38. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1074303.
- Oyalowo A, Forde KA, Lamanna A, Kochman ML. Effect of Patient-Directed Messaging on Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Mar 1;5(3):e224529. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4529.
- Nolan JM, Schultz PW, Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ, Griskevicius V. Normative social influence is underdetected. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008 Jul;34(7):913-23. doi: 10.1177/0146167208316691.
- Monticciolo DL, Malak SF, Friedewald SM, Eby PR, Newell MS, Moy L, Destounis S, Leung JWT, Hendrick RE, Smetherman D. Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol. 2021 Sep;18(9):1280-1288. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2021.04.021. Epub 2021 Jun 19.
- Lin ML, Huang JJ, Li SH, Lee FH, Hou MF, Wang HH. Effects of different reminder strategies on first-time mammography screening among women in Taiwan. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Feb 12;20(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-4948-6.
- Lau J, Lim TZ, Jianlin Wong G, Tan KK. The health belief model and colorectal cancer screening in the general population: A systematic review. Prev Med Rep. 2020 Oct 6;20:101223. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101223. eCollection 2020 Dec.
- Knudsen AB, Rutter CM, Peterse EFP, Lietz AP, Seguin CL, Meester RGS, Perdue LA, Lin JS, Siegel RL, Doria-Rose VP, Feuer EJ, Zauber AG, Kuntz KM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. Colorectal Cancer Screening: An Updated Modeling Study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2021 May 18;325(19):1998-2011. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.5746.
- Klein WM, Stefanek ME. Cancer risk elicitation and communication: lessons from the psychology of risk perception. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 May-Jun;57(3):147-67. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.57.3.147.
- Jasurda JS, Danieli R, Yamanaka B, Shaukat A. Telephone Reminders Improve Fecal Immunochemical Test Return Rates. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022 Sep 1;117(9):1536-1538. doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001868. Epub 2022 Jun 10.
- Hofmann B, Stanak M. Nudging in screening: Literature review and ethical guidance. Patient Educ Couns. 2018 Sep;101(9):1561-1569. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.03.021. Epub 2018 Mar 27.
- Davey C, White V, Gattellari M, Ward JE. Reconciling population benefits and women's individual autonomy in mammographic screening: in-depth interviews to explore women's views about 'informed choice'. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2005 Feb;29(1):69-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2005.tb00752.x.
- Champion VL, Christy SM, Rakowski W, Lairson DR, Monahan PO, Gathirua-Mwangi WG, Stump TE, Biederman EB, Kettler CD, Rawl SM. An RCT to Increase Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening. Am J Prev Med. 2020 Aug;59(2):e69-e78. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.03.008.
- Bouvard V, Wentzensen N, Mackie A, Berkhof J, Brotherton J, Giorgi-Rossi P, Kupets R, Smith R, Arrossi S, Bendahhou K, Canfell K, Chirenje ZM, Chung MH, Del Pino M, de Sanjose S, Elfstrom M, Franco EL, Hamashima C, Hamers FF, Herrington CS, Murillo R, Sangrajrang S, Sankaranarayanan R, Saraiya M, Schiffman M, Zhao F, Arbyn M, Prendiville W, Indave Ruiz BI, Mosquera-Metcalfe I, Lauby-Secretan B. The IARC Perspective on Cervical Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med. 2021 Nov 11;385(20):1908-1918. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsr2030640. No abstract available.
- Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Making. 2015 May;35(4):539-57. doi: 10.1177/0272989X14547740. Epub 2014 Aug 21.
- Agide FD, Sadeghi R, Garmaroudi G, Tigabu BM. A systematic review of health promotion interventions to increase breast cancer screening uptake: from the last 12 years. Eur J Public Health. 2018 Dec 1;28(6):1149-1155. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckx231.
研究记录日期
研究主要日期
学习开始 (实际的)
初级完成 (实际的)
研究完成 (实际的)
研究注册日期
首次提交
首先提交符合 QC 标准的
首次发布 (实际的)
研究记录更新
最后更新发布 (实际的)
上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新
最后验证
更多信息
此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索，没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求，请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改，我们的网站上也会自动更新.