Risk information--barrier to informed choice? A focus group study.
Standard
Risk information--barrier to informed choice? A focus group study. / Steckelberg, Anke; Kasper, Jürgen; Redegeld, Michael; Mühlhauser, Ingrid.
in: SOZ PRAVENTIV MED, Jahrgang 49, Nr. 6, 6, 2004, S. 375-380.Publikationen: SCORING: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift/Zeitung › SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz › Forschung › Begutachtung
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Risk information--barrier to informed choice? A focus group study.
AU - Steckelberg, Anke
AU - Kasper, Jürgen
AU - Redegeld, Michael
AU - Mühlhauser, Ingrid
PY - 2004
Y1 - 2004
N2 - OBJECTIVES: To study consumers' information needs for informed choice on colorectal cancer screening, and to develop and evaluate information material that is evidence-based and communicates benefit as well as lack of benefit and risks as natural frequencies. METHODS: Design: Focus group study; during a first round consumers' needs and attitudes were surveyed, in a second round the information material was evaluated. The study was carried out in Hamburg, Germany. Participants: 50 women and men, 40 years or older without colorectal diseases. RESULTS: Consumers opted for traditional information that advises and guides them. If consumers were nevertheless given evidence-based information that considers the defined criteria it evoked cognitive dissonance which consumers tried to cope with by devaluating, minimising and not noticing the information. Cognitive dissonance inhibits processing of information. Researchers are confronted with a dilemma to either respect consumers' requests or to facilitate informed choice. CONCLUSION: Cognitive dissonance may be a barrier to informed choice. This should be considered when aiming at communicating risk information.
AB - OBJECTIVES: To study consumers' information needs for informed choice on colorectal cancer screening, and to develop and evaluate information material that is evidence-based and communicates benefit as well as lack of benefit and risks as natural frequencies. METHODS: Design: Focus group study; during a first round consumers' needs and attitudes were surveyed, in a second round the information material was evaluated. The study was carried out in Hamburg, Germany. Participants: 50 women and men, 40 years or older without colorectal diseases. RESULTS: Consumers opted for traditional information that advises and guides them. If consumers were nevertheless given evidence-based information that considers the defined criteria it evoked cognitive dissonance which consumers tried to cope with by devaluating, minimising and not noticing the information. Cognitive dissonance inhibits processing of information. Researchers are confronted with a dilemma to either respect consumers' requests or to facilitate informed choice. CONCLUSION: Cognitive dissonance may be a barrier to informed choice. This should be considered when aiming at communicating risk information.
M3 - SCORING: Zeitschriftenaufsatz
VL - 49
SP - 375
EP - 380
IS - 6
M1 - 6
ER -
