Sharabi Eden, Mathur Kushagra, Choi So Yung, Hollander Barbara, Spiegel Brennan, Almario Christopher V
Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
Biostatistics Shared Resource, Cedars-Sinai Cancer.
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2025 Feb 6. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000002144.
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.
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.
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).
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.
像结肠镜检查这样的筛查测试可以预防结直肠癌(CRC),但其有效性常常受到质疑。北欧-欧洲结直肠癌倡议(NordICC)试验表明,在符合方案分析中,结肠镜检查能显著降低结直肠癌的发病率和死亡率。然而,该试验的媒体报道往往聚焦于意向性筛查结果,即显示死亡率没有变化,这可能导致公众对结肠镜检查的益处感到困惑。本研究旨在评估此类媒体文章是否会削弱公众对结肠镜检查筛查的认知和意愿。
我们招募了美国一个具有全国代表性的样本,样本为年龄在45至75岁、平均患结直肠癌风险的未接受筛查的成年人。受访者被随机分为1:1两组,分别阅读一组由胃肠病学家评定为低质量或高质量的关于NordICC的文章。在阅读文章前后,参与者报告他们是否计划接受结肠镜检查以筛查结直肠癌。我们的主要结果是接受结肠镜检查筛查的意愿出现负面变化。
在完成调查的2013名参与者中,1531人(76.1%)表示他们在阅读文章前计划接受结肠镜检查或尚未决定。阅读媒体报道后,低质量文章组中有90人(12.0%)不再计划接受结肠镜检查,而高质量文章组中有73人(9.3%);差异无统计学意义(P = 0.08)。
一篇被评定为低质量的关于NordICC的广泛传播的文章,与另一篇被评定为高质量的主流文章相比,对结肠镜检查筛查结直肠癌的态度没有产生不同影响。我们的研究让人放心的是,大多数人在阅读一篇文章后不会立即改变健康行为,无论其感知的准确性如何。