Preference for Deliberation and Perceived Usefulness of Standard- and Narrative-Style Leaflet Designs: Implications for Equitable Cancer-Screening Communication.

Abstract

In the UK, cancer-screening invitations are mailed with information styled in a standard, didactic way to allow for informed choice. Information processing theory suggests this "standard style" could be more appealing to people who prefer deliberative thinking. People less likely to engage in deliberative thinking may be disenfranchised by the design of current standard-style information. To examine the distribution of preference for deliberative thinking across demographic groups (Study 1) and explore associations between preference for deliberative thinking and perceived usefulness of standard- and narrative-style screening information (Study 2). In Study 1, adults aged 45-59 (n = 4,241) were mailed a questionnaire via primary care assessing preference for deliberative thinking and demographic characteristics. In Study 2, a separate cohort of adults aged 45-59 (n = 2,058) were mailed standard- and narrative-style leaflets and a questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics, preference for deliberative thinking, and perceived leaflet usefulness. Data were analyzed using multiple regression. In Study 1 (n = 1,783) and Study 2 (n = 650), having lower socioeconomic status, being a women, and being of nonwhite ethnicity was associated with lower preference for deliberative thinking. In Study 2, the standard-style leaflet was perceived as less useful among participants with lower preference for deliberative thinking, while perceived usefulness of the narrative-style leaflet did not differ by preference for deliberative thinking. Information leaflets using a standard style may disadvantage women and those experiencing greater socioeconomic deprivation. More work is required to identify design styles that have a greater appeal for people with low preference for deliberative thinking.