Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychosocial Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening Intention: An Experiment on the Invitation Letter

  • Full length manuscript
  • Published:
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In Italy, attendance rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are suboptimal. The present work analysed cognitive and emotional predictors of CRC screening intention and tested an intervention on a real invitation letter to improve CRC screening intention, both directly and in interaction with the predictors of our model.

Methods

Our model included variables from the theory of planned behaviour and the emotional barriers to bowel screening scale. We applied six changes to an invitation letter used in Italy to avoid the repetition of words like ‘faeces’, ‘blood’, or ‘occult’ and reduce the prompting of disgust. The 228 participants were randomly assigned to a between-participants design (original letter vs. manipulated letter).

Results

Disgust hindered CRC screening intention, while embarrassment, fear, and subjective norms (i.e., perception of the social pressures to attend CRC screening) were not associated with intention to screen. More positive attitudes towards CRC screening were associated with a higher intention to screen. The positive association between perceived behavioural control and CRC screening intention was stronger for participants who read the letter with fewer (vs. more) references to bodily waste. Letter manipulation did not affect intention to screen.

Conclusions

The disgust associated with faecal matter is a critical factor in determining CRC screening attendance, and it should be acknowledged as such in public policies. Until new screening tests avoiding the activation of this emotional reaction are concretely available, public campaigns should improve CRC screening participation by boosting both positive attitudes towards screening and patients’ perceived behavioural control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The experimental material and dataset are available at: https://osf.io/g3zp2/?view_only=981e7bc4cb26477389cd881ce3f9f2d4.

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Ca- Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Danese E, Montagnana M, Lippi G. Combining old and new strategies for colorectal cancer screening. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8:67–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica. I numeri del cancro in Italia. Brescia, IT: Intermedia editore; 2020.

  4. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Social cognition models and health behaviour: a structured review. Psychol Health. 2000;15:173–89.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Action control. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Consedine NS, Ladwig I, Reddig MK, Broadbent EA. The many faeces of colorectal cancer screening embarrassment: preliminary psychometric development and links to screening outcome. Br J Health Psychol. 2011;16:559–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kiviniemi MT, Jandorf L, Erwin DO. Disgusted, embarrassed, annoyed: affective associations relate to uptake of colonoscopy screening. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48:112–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Conner M, McEachan R, Taylor N, O’Hara J, Lawton R. Role of affective attitudes and anticipated affective reactions in predicting health behaviors. Health Psychol. 2015;34:642–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lucas T, Hayman LW, Blessman JE, Asabigi K, Novak JM. Gain versus loss-framed messaging and colorectal cancer screening among African Americans: a preliminary examination of perceived racism and culturally targeted dual messaging. Br J Health Psychol. 2016;21:249–67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lucas T, Manning M, Hayman LW, Blessman J. Targeting and tailoring message-framing: the moderating effect of racial identity on receptivity to colorectal cancer screening among African-Americans. J Behav Med. 2018;41:747–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cooke R, French DP. How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? A meta-analysis Psychol Health. 2008;23:745–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Consedine N, Reynolds L, Borg C. Emotions, delay, and avoidance in cancer screening: roles for fear, embarrassment, and disgust. In: Williams DM, Rhodes RE, Conner MT, editors. Affective determinants of health behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 431–51.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hunkin H, Turnbull D, Zajac IT. Considering anticipated regret may reduce colorectal cancer screening intentions: a randomised controlled trial. Psychol Health. 2020;35:555–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. O’Carroll RE, Chambers JA, Brownlee L, Libby G, Steele RJC. Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS): a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:118–27.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Davis M, Oaten M, Occhipinti S, Chambers SK, Stevenson RJ. An investigation of the emotion of disgust as an affective barrier to intention to screen for colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer Care. 2017;26: e12582.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Reynolds LM, Bissett IP, Consedine NS. Emotional predictors of bowel screening: the avoidance-promoting role of fear, embarrassment, and disgust. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:518–27.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Scaglioni G, Cavazza N. Emotional barriers to bowel screening in Italy: scale psychometric properties and effects on screening attendance. Psychooncology. 2022;31:78–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brown-Kramer CR, Kiviniemi MT. Affective associations and cognitive beliefs relate to individuals’ decisions to perform testicular or breast self-exams. J Behav Med. 2015;38:664–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reynolds LM, Consedine NS, Pizarro DA, Bissett IP. Disgust and behavioral avoidance in colorectal cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review and research agenda. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36:122–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Scaglioni G, Guidetti M, Cavazza N. The role of disgust as an emotional barrier to colorectal cancer screening participation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Health. 2021;1–20.

  21. Chapple A, Ziebland S, Hewitson P, McPherson A. What affects the uptake of screening for bowel cancer using a faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:2425–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Itzhaki M. Knowledge and feelings about colorectal cancer among the Jewish adult population in Israel: a mixed methods study. Appl Nurs Res. 2018;43:64–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Palmer CK, Thomas MC, von Wagner C, Raine R. Reasons for non-uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:1705–11.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Chambers J, O’Carroll R, Brownlee L, Libby G, Steele R. Colorectal cancer screening and perceived disgust: the importance of the “ICK” factor in faecal occult blood test uptake. Colorectal Cancer Open Access. 2016;2:13.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lo SH, Waller J, Vrinten C, Kobayashi L, von Wagner C. Social cognitive mediators of sociodemographic differences in colorectal cancer screening uptake. BioMed Res Int. 2015;2015: 165074.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Reynolds LM, McCambridge SA, Bissett IP, Consedine NS. Trait and state disgust: an experimental investigation of disgust and avoidance in colorectal cancer decision scenarios. Health Psychol. 2014;33:1495–506.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Klasko-Foster LB, Keller MM, Kiviniemi MT. Is it disgusting or am I just easily disgusted? The relation between situational disgust, dispositional disgust, and colonoscopy intentions. Eur J Cancer Care. 2020;29: e13244.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Osborne J, Flight I, Wilson C, Chen G, Ratcliffe J, Young G. The impact of sample type and procedural attributes on relative acceptability of different colorectal cancer screening regimens. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:1825–36.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Quyn AJ, Fraser CG, Rodger J, Digan A, Anderson AS, Steele RJC. Participation in bowel screening among men attending abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Br J Surg. 2018;105:529–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Neter E, Stein N, Barnett-Griness O, Rennert G, Hagoel L. From the bench to public health. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46:273–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McGregor LM, von Wagner C, Vart G, Yuen WC, Raine R, Wardle J, et al. The impact of supplementary narrative-based information on colorectal cancer screening beliefs and intention. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:162.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica. Linee Guida Tumori del Colon. Roma, IT: Sistema nazionale Linee guida dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità; 2021

  33. Rozin P, Haidt J, McCauley CR. Disgust. In: Lewis M, Haviland-Jones JM, Barrett LF, editors. Handbook of emotions. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford; 2008. p. 757–76.

    Google Scholar 

  34. O’Carroll RE, Foster C, McGeechan G, Sandford K, Ferguson E. The, “ICK” factor, anticipated regret, and willingness to become an organ donor. Health Psychol. 2011;30:236–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bynum SA, Davis JL, Green BL, Katz RV. Unwillingness to participate in colorectal cancer screening: examining fears, attitudes, and medical mistrust in an ethnically diverse sample of adults 50 years and older. Am J Health Promot. 2012;26:295–300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Azaiza F, Cohen M. Colorectal cancer screening, intentions, and predictors in Jewish and Arab Israelis: a population-based study. Health Educ Behav. 2008;35:478–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Carfora V, Di Massimo F, Rastelli R, Catellani P, Piastra M. Dialogue management in conversational agents through psychology of persuasion and machine learning. Multimed Tools Appl. 2020;79:35949–71.

    Google Scholar 

  38. De Bekker-Grob EW, Hol L, Donkers B, Van Dam L, Habbema JDF, Van Leerdam ME, et al. Labeled versus unlabeled discrete choice experiments in health economics: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Value Health. 2010;13:315–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Perone P, Becker DV, Tybur JM. Visual disgust elicitors produce an attentional blink independent of contextual and trait-level pathogen avoidance. Emotion. 2021;21:871–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sheppes G, Scheibe S, Suri G, Radu P, Blechert J, Gross JJ. Emotion regulation choice: a conceptual framework and supporting evidence. J Exp Psychol. 2014;143:163–81.

  41. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.

  42. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Scaglioni G, Mezzetti F, Chiereghin A, Bazzani C, Cavazza N. Social-psychological predictors of colorectal cancer screening intention: an experiment on the invitation letter. Open Sci Framew. https://osf.io/g3zp2/?view_only=981e7bc4cb26477389cd881ce3f9f2d4.

  44. Lawton R, Conner M, McEachan R. Desire or reason: predicting health behaviors from affective and cognitive attitudes. Health Psychol. 2009;28:56–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McGregor LM, von Wagner C, Atkin W, Kralj-Hans I, Halloran SP, Handley G, et al. Reducing the social gradient in uptake of the NHS colorectal cancer screening programme using a narrative-based information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rhodes RE, de Bruijn G-J. What predicts intention-behavior discordance? A review of the action control framework. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2013;41:201–7.

  47. Samadiani N, Huang G, Cai B, Luo W, Chi C-H, Xiang Y, et al. A review on automatic facial expression recognition systems assisted by multimodal sensor data. Sensors. 2019;19:1863.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Romero-Vázquez J, Argüelles-Arias F, García-Montes JM, Caunedo-Álvarez Á, Pellicer-Bautista FJ, Herrerías-Gutiérrez JM. Capsule endoscopy in patients refusing conventional endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:7424–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang Y, Chen P-M, Liu R-B. Advance in plasma SEPT9 gene methylation assay for colorectal cancer early detection. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2018;10:15–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health. 1998;13:623–49.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Humanities, Social Sciences, and Cultural Industries, University of Parma, Borgo Carissimi 10, 43121, Parma, Italy

    Giulia Scaglioni

  2. Governance of Screening Programs Unit, Local Health Authority of Bologna, Via Montebello 6, 40121, Bologna, Italy

    Angela Chiereghin, Carmen Bazzani & Francesca Mezzetti

  3. Department of Communication and Economics, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Viale Antonio Allegri 9, 42121, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Nicoletta Cavazza

Authors
  1. Giulia Scaglioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angela Chiereghin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carmen Bazzani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesca Mezzetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicoletta Cavazza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The first draft of the manuscript was written by GS and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors contributed to, read, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulia Scaglioni.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration. This study was approved by the Comitato Etico Area Vasta Emilia Centro della Regione Emilia-Romagna (Protocol number PG0032762021, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero — Universitaria di Bologna, Policlinico di Sant’Orsola, Via Albertoni 15 — 40138 Bologna, Italy). Participants provided their informed consent to anonymous participation and treatment of their responses before beginning the questionnaire.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scaglioni, G., Chiereghin, A., Bazzani, C. et al. Psychosocial Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening Intention: An Experiment on the Invitation Letter. Int.J. Behav. Med. 30, 867–877 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-022-10142-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-022-10142-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation