Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
BMJ Open. 2019 Oct 28;9(10):e029551. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029551.
To investigate whether UK websites about cervical cancer screening targeted to the public include (1) information about benefits and risks of screening, possible screening results and cervical cancer statistics, (2) quantitative presentation formats recommended in the risk communication literature and (3) appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.
Cross-sectional analysis of websites using a comprehensive checklist of information items on screening benefits, risks, possible results and cervical cancer statistics.
We recorded the number of websites that contained each of the information items, and the presentation format used for probabilistic information (no quantification provided, verbal quantifiers only, different types of numerical formats and/or graphs). We also recorded the number of websites containing appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.
Websites were identified through the most common Google search terms used in the UK to find information on cervical screening, according to GoogleTrends and a commercial internet-monitoring programme. Two additional websites were identified by the authors as relevant.
After applying exclusion criteria, 14 websites were evaluated, including websites of public and private health service providers, charities, a medical society and a pharmacy. The websites mentioned different benefits, risks of screening and possible results. However, specific content varied between websites. Probabilistic information was often presented using non-recommended formats, including relative risk reductions to express screening benefits, and verbal quantifiers without numbers to express risks. Appeals for participation were present in most websites, with almost half also mentioning informed decision-making.
UK websites about cervical cancer screening were generally balanced. However, benefits and risks were presented using different formats, potentially hindering comparisons. Additionally, recommendations from the literature to facilitate understanding of quantitative information and facilitate informed decisions were often not followed. Designing websites that adhere to existing recommendations may support informed screening uptake.
调查英国面向公众的宫颈癌筛查网站是否包含（1）有关筛查的益处和风险、可能的筛查结果和宫颈癌统计数据的信息，（2）风险沟通文献中推荐的定量呈现格式，以及（3）参与和/或知情决策的呼吁。
使用有关筛查益处、风险、可能结果和宫颈癌统计数据的信息项目综合清单对网站进行横断面分析。
我们记录了包含每个信息项目的网站数量，以及用于概率信息的呈现格式（未提供量化，仅使用口头量词、不同类型的数值格式和/或图表）。我们还记录了包含参与和/或知情决策呼吁的网站数量。
根据 GoogleTrends 和商业互联网监测计划，通过在英国最常用的谷歌搜索词来识别网站。作者还确定了另外两个相关网站。
在应用排除标准后，评估了 14 个网站，包括公共和私人卫生服务提供者、慈善机构、医学协会和药店的网站。这些网站提到了不同的益处、筛查风险和可能的结果。然而，特定内容在网站之间存在差异。概率信息通常使用不推荐的格式呈现，包括表示筛查益处的相对风险降低，以及表示风险的没有数字的口头量词。大多数网站都有参与的呼吁，近一半的网站还提到了知情决策。
英国关于宫颈癌筛查的网站通常是平衡的。然而，益处和风险的呈现采用了不同的格式，这可能会妨碍比较。此外，为了促进对定量信息的理解和促进知情决策而提出的文献建议往往没有得到遵循。设计符合现有建议的网站可能会支持知情的筛查参与。
