How narratives influence colorectal cancer screening decision making and uptake: A realist review.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Although narratives have been found to affect decisions about preventive behaviours, including participation in cancer screening, the underlying mechanisms of narratives remain unclear. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to summarize and synthesize existing literature on narrative interventions in the context of colorectal cancer screening. Our main research question was as follows: How, when and for whom do narratives work context of decision making about colorectal cancer screening participation? METHODS:We undertook a realist review to collect evidence on narratives in the context of colorectal cancer screening. A search of the literature was performed in Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cinahl and PsycINFO. We included empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative) of narrative interventions. In total, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. A content-based taxonomy of patient narrative types in decision aids formed the basis for our initial programme theory. MAIN RESULT:We identified four mechanisms: (a) process narratives that address perceived barriers towards screening lead to improved affective forecasting, (b) experience narratives that demonstrate the screening procedure lead to increased self-efficacy, (c) experience narratives that depict experiences from similar others lead to more engagement and (d) outcome narratives that focus on outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision decrease or increase fear of colorectal cancer. The evidence was limited on which narrative type may facilitate or bias informed decision making in colorectal cancer screening. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:The findings indicate the importance of more detailed descriptions of narrative interventions in order to understand how mechanisms may facilitate or bias informed decision making in colorectal cancer screening.
Project description:In the context of colorectal cancer screening, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of different emotion-laden narratives, to investigate the specific emotions elicited at both subjective and physiological levels, and to test the effects of emotions explicitly expressed by the narrative character. Study 1 used a between-participants design comparing four conditions: relief-based narrative, regret-based narrative, control (test-uptake only) narrative, and standard invitation material (no-narrative condition). Study 2 used a mixed design, with the narrative content as a within-participants factor and whether emotions were expressed by the narrative character or not as between-participants factor. The main outcome measures were: intention to undergo testing (Studies 1 and 2), knowledge, risk perception, proportion of informed choices (Study 1), subjective emotional responses, changes in skin conductance, heart rate, and corrugator muscle activity (Study 2). In Study 1, relative to the non-narrative condition (51%), only the relief-based narrative significantly increased intention to undergo testing (86%). Relative to the standard invitation material, the narrative conditions did not decrease knowledge, alter risk perception, or decrease the proportion of informed choices. In Study 2, the relief-based narrative elicited the lowest self-reported negative affect, and received greater implicit attention, as suggested by the larger heart rate decrease. Making the emotions experienced by the narrative character explicit decreased negative affect, as indicated by the lower skin conductance and corrugator responses during reading. Our findings provide support for the use of a relief-based narrative with emotions expressed by the character in addition to the standard information material to promote colorectal cancer screening.
Project description:Interventions are needed to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) uptake. Narratives may have advantages over didactic information. We tested different narratives for increasing CRCS intentions and behaviors, and examined their mechanisms of influence. We randomized 477 unscreened adults 50-75 years old to one of three groups: CRCS information only (1) or CRCS information plus a photo and text narrative of a CRC survivor (2) or CRC screener who did not have cancer (3). Photos were tailored on participants' sex, age group, and race/ethnicity. Participants completed online surveys before and after intervention exposure, and 1-, 6-, and 12-months follow-up. Thirty percent of participants completed CRCS. Narrative conditions (vs. information only) were negatively associated with intention, but also positively influenced intentions through greater emotional engagement. Survivor (vs. screener) narratives were positively associated with CRCS, and had mixed effects on intention - positively through emotional engagement and negatively through self-referencing engagement to self-efficacy. Survivor narratives elicited more negative affect, which had positive and negative influences on intention. Continued research using path models to understand the mechanisms of narrative effects will inform theory development and message design. Additional measurement evaluation is needed to adequately capture and then compare the effects of different components of narrative engagement.
Project description:Cancer decision-making interventions commonly utilize narratives as a persuasive strategy to increase identification with the message source, promote involvement with the topic, and elicit greater willingness to adopt recommended behaviors. However, there is little empirical research examining the mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of this strategy in the context of cancer research participation. Data for the current manuscript were collected as part of a larger study conducted with cancer patients (N =?413) from the USA, UK, and the Republic of Ireland. Participants viewed and evaluated video-recorded vignettes, illustrating different strategies for discussing clinical trials participation with family members. Results showed nationality was a significant predictor of identification with the main character (i.e., patient) in the vignette. Unexpectedly, these cross-national differences in identification disappeared when patients currently undergoing treatment had higher perceived susceptibility of their cancer. Identification with the main character in the vignettes was a significant predictor of intentions to participate in cancer research, but only when the mediating role of narrative transportation was considered. The findings demonstrate the importance of considering how individual and social identities influence identification with characters in cancer narratives and yield practical guidance for developing arts-based interventions to increase cancer research participation.
Project description:Purpose:Atypical hyperplasia (AH) is associated with a nearly 4-fold elevation of lifetime risk for breast cancer, and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is associated with a 7- to 8-fold risk. Women with AH/LCIS make numerous decisions in the course of treatment, including whether to take a risk-reducing medication, an option relatively few women pursue. We explored women's decision-making processes through patient narratives in an effort to inform decision supports for AH/LCIS. Methods:We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 English-speaking women with AH/LCIS and no subsequent diagnosis of invasive breast cancer who had enrolled in the Rays of Hope Center for Breast Cancer Research patient registry between April 5, 2012, and March 31, 2016. Interviews were audiotaped, professionally transcribed, and qualitatively analyzed using thematic qualitative content analysis. Results:We identified three major narrative themes: 1) experiences with medical care; 2) decision-making; and 3) making sense of AH/LCIS. Each major theme had several subthemes, many of which map onto existing decisional theories and heuristics. Subthemes included the impact of life context on diagnosis meaning, emotional responses, changes in self-concept and body image, and understanding of the risk-benefit of risk-reducing medications. Conclusions:This narrative analysis offers important insights into how lived experience may influence decision-making for women with AH/LCIS. Decision supports that focus not only on analytic decisional processes, but also patients' subjectivities and decisional heuristics, could prove useful for women and their health care providers.
Project description:Disparities in cervical cancer and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination persist among Vietnamese and Latina women. Through a partnership with Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties (PPOSBC) in Southern California, we conducted in-depth interviews with young adult Latina ( n = 24) and Vietnamese ( n = 24) women, and PPOSBC staff ( n = 2). We purposively sampled vaccinated women to elicit HPV vaccine decision narratives to uncover rich data on motivators, cultural values, and implicit vaccine attitudes. Unvaccinated women were interviewed to identify barriers. Women were also asked to discuss their observations of men's HPV vaccine attitudes. Narrative engagement theory guided the study privileging the meaning women ascribed to their experiences and conversations related to vaccine decision making. Vaccine decision narratives included (a) mother-daughter narratives, (b) practitioner recommendation of HPV vaccination, (c) independence narratives among Vietnamese women, (d) HPV (un)awareness narratives, and (d) school exposure to HPV knowledge. Barriers to vaccinating included trust in partner HPV status, and family silence and stigma about sexual health. Participants conveyed the importance of including messages aimed at reaching men. Practitioners described insurance barriers to offering same day vaccination at PPOSBC health center visits. Narrative communication theory and methodology address health equity by privileging how Vietnamese and Latina women ascribe meaning to their lived experiences and conversations about HPV vaccination. Identifying authentic and relatable vaccine decision narratives will be necessary to effectively engage Vietnamese and Latina women. These findings will guide the process of adapting an existing National Cancer Institute research-tested HPV vaccine intervention.
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increased interest in using narratives or storytelling to influence health policies. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on the use of narratives to impact the health policy-making process. METHODS:Eligible study designs included randomised studies, non-randomised studies, process evaluation studies, economic studies, qualitative studies, stakeholder analyses, policy analyses, and case studies. The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), WHO Global Health Library, Communication and Mass Media Complete, and Google Scholar databases were searched. We followed standard systematic review methodology for study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We synthesised the findings narratively and presented the results stratified according to the following stages of the policy cycle: (1) agenda-setting, (2) policy formulation, (3) policy adoption, (4) policy implementation and (5) policy evaluation. Additionally, we presented the knowledge gaps relevant to using narrative to impact health policy-making. RESULTS:Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, and included case studies (n?=?15), participatory action research (n?=?1), documentary analysis (n?=?1) and biographical method (n?=?1). The majority were of very low methodological quality. In addition, none of the studies formally evaluated the effectiveness of the narrative-based interventions. Findings suggest that narratives may have a positive influence when used as inspiration and empowerment tools to stimulate policy inquiries, as educational and awareness tools to initiate policy discussions and gain public support, and as advocacy and lobbying tools to formulate, adopt or implement policy. There is also evidence of undesirable effects of using narratives. In one case study, narrative use led to widespread insurance reimbursement of a therapy for breast cancer that was later proven to be ineffective. Another case study described how the use of narrative inappropriately exaggerated the perceived risk of a procedure, which led to limiting its use and preventing a large number of patients from its benefits. A third case study described how optimistic 'cure' or 'hope' stories of children with cancer were selectively used to raise money for cancer research that ignored the negative realities. The majority of included studies did not provide information on the definition or content of narratives, the theoretical framework underlying the narrative intervention or the possible predictors of the success of narrative interventions. CONCLUSION:The existing evidence base precludes any robust inferences about the impact of narrative interventions on health policy-making. We discuss the implications of the findings for research and policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID?=? CRD42018085011 ).
Project description:We propose conviction narrative theory (CNT) to broaden decision-making theory in order to better understand and analyse how subjectively means-end rational actors cope in contexts in which the traditional assumptions in decision-making models fail to hold. Conviction narratives enable actors to draw on their beliefs, causal models, and rules of thumb to identify opportunities worth acting on, to simulate the future outcome of their actions, and to feel sufficiently convinced to act. The framework focuses on how narrative and emotion combine to allow actors to deliberate and to select actions that they think will produce the outcomes they desire. It specifies connections between particular emotions and deliberative thought, hypothesising that approach and avoidance emotions evoked during narrative simulation play a crucial role. Two mental states, Divided and Integrated, in which narratives can be formed or updated, are introduced and used to explain some familiar problems that traditional models cannot.
Project description:CONTEXT:The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence to guide decisions on the implementation of these interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION:A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed from January 2004 to January 2018. All monetary values were reported in 2016 US dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS:Fifty-three studies were included in the body of evidence from a literature search yield of 8,568 total articles. For multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening, the median intervention cost per participant was $26.69 (interquartile interval [IQI]=$3.25, $113.72), and the median incremental cost per additional woman screened was $147.64 (IQI=$32.92, $924.98). For cervical cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional woman screened were $159.80 (IQI=$117.62, $214.73) and $159.49 (IQI=$64.74, $331.46), respectively. Two studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $748 and $33,433. For colorectal cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional person screened were $36.63 (IQI=$7.70, $139.23) and $582.44 (IQI=$91.10, $1,452.12), respectively. Two studies indicated a decline in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $1,651 and $3,817. CONCLUSIONS:Multicomponent interventions to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening were cost effective based on a very conservative threshold. Additionally, multicomponent interventions for colorectal cancer screening demonstrated net cost savings. Cost effectiveness for multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening could not be determined owing to the lack of studies reporting incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Future studies estimating this outcome could assist implementers with decision making.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Socioeconomic status (SES) disparities in colorectal cancer screening are persistent. Lower education and income are both associated with lower screening rates. Both cognitive (e.g., perceived barriers) and affective (e.g., disgust, fear) decision-making constructs are known determinants of colorectal cancer screening behavior. This study tests the hypotheses that SES may be related to decision-making constructs and that this SES-decision-making construct relation may contribute to explaining the SES-screening behavior disparity. METHOD:Surveys assessing perceived benefits and barriers to screening, self-efficacy, positive and negative affective associations with colonoscopy, fear of colonoscopy, colorectal cancer knowledge, past screening behavior, and demographics including education and income were completed by 2,015 African American participants ages 50 and older. Both univariable and multivariable relations of SES to decision-making constructs were examined, as were univariable and multivariable models of the indirect effect of SES on screening via decision-making constructs. RESULTS:Socioeconomic status was related to both screening compliance and the decision-making constructs. Bootstrap modeling of the indirect effect showed that the total effect of the SES-screening behavior relation included an indirect effect via social cognitive decision-making constructs. CONCLUSION:These findings suggest that cognitive and affective decision-making constructs account for at least some of the SES disparities in colorectal cancer screening behavior. As such, more research is needed to explore the intra individual-level influences of disparities in colorectal cancer screening. In addition, work is needed to develop effective intervention approaches to address the relation of SES to decision-making constructs. (PsycINFO Database Record
Project description:Reading experimenter-provided narratives of negative income shock has been previously demonstrated to increase impulsivity, as measured by discounting of delayed rewards. We hypothesized that writing these narratives would potentiate their effects of negative income shock on decision-making more than simply reading them. In the current study, 193 cigarette-smoking individuals from Amazon Mechanical Turk were assigned to either read an experimenter-provided narrative or self-generate a narrative describing either the negative income shock of job loss or a neutral condition of job transfer. Individuals then completed a task of delay discounting and measures of affective response to narratives, as well as rating various narrative qualities such as personal relevance and vividness. Consistent with past research, narratives of negative income shock increased delay discounting compared to control narratives. No significant differences existed in delay discounting after self-generating compared to reading experimenter-provided narratives. Positive affect was lower and negative affect was higher in response to narratives of job loss, but affect measures did not differ based on whether narratives were experimenter-provided or self-generated. All narratives were rated as equally realistic, but self-generated narratives (whether negative or neutral) were rated as more vivid and relevant than experimenter-provided narratives. These results indicate that the content of negative income shock narratives, regardless of source, consistently drives short-term choices. (PsycINFO Database Record