Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12618000392268
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
14/02/2018
Date registered
16/03/2018
Date last updated
16/03/2018
Type of registration
Prospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
How health labels affect behavioural intentions and perceptions of illnesses.
Query!
Scientific title
How health labels affect behavioural intentions and perceptions of illnesses in adults.
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
293607
0
NIL
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Chronic Kidney disease Stage 3A
305865
0
Query!
Pre-diabetes
305867
0
Query!
Mild Hyperlipidaemia
305869
0
Query!
Mild Hypertension
305870
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Public Health
305068
305068
0
0
Query!
Other public health
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
We will conduct a single, on-line survey. Participants will be randomised to read either “labelled” or “description only” hypothetical scenarios. Scenarios describe the outcome of a recent health test using either the medical terms (label scenario) or descriptive terms (descriptive only scenario). There are both “labelled” and “descriptive only” scenarios for four health condition (pre-diabetes, mild hypertension, mild hyperlipidaemia, and chronic kidney disease stage 3a). Participants will read a random selection for two of the four scenarios in each category (labelled or description only), balanced to ensure even distribution of scenarios across participants. After reading the scenarios, participants will be asked to rate the likelihood of attending follow-up tests for the specific condition (either blood glucose level, kidney function, blood pressure or cholesterol). The survey is expected to take up to 20 minutes.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
299863
0
Behaviour
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Each participant will be randomized to read and respond to two of four "labelled" scenarios or "descriptive only" scenarios. The health conditions will be pre-diabetes, mild hypertension, mild hyperlipidaemia, chronic kidney disease 3A.
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
304239
0
Differences in intention to undertake further tests between labelled and description only scenarios will be analysed from participant responses to the question "Which best describes your intention to have the follow-up tests described in the scenario next week?" Response options range from 1 (definitely will not) to 10 (definitely will).
Query!
Assessment method [1]
304239
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
304239
0
end of survey
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
343196
0
Differences in confidence in participant’s decision to undertake further tests between labelled and description only scenarios will be analysed from participant responses to the questions "How confident are you with your decision in the above scenario?" Response options range from 1 (definitely will not) to 10 (definitely will).
Query!
Assessment method [1]
343196
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
343196
0
end of survey
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
343197
0
The effects of participant characteristics on intention to undertake further tests will be assessed using multivariate regression analysis.
The participant characteristics that will be assessed are:
• Personality (scale from Gosling et al, 2003)
• Health locus of control (scale from Wallston, Wallston & DeVellis, 1978)
• Regulatory focus (scale from Haws, Dholakia & Bearden, 2010)
• Medical minimiser/maximiser (scale from Scherer et al 2016)
• Risk orientation (scale adapted from Weber et al. 2002)
• Risk perceptions (scale adapted from Fox-Glassman & Weber 2006, Barnett & Breakwell 2001, Slovic 2001)
• Stigma (scale adapted from Brakel 2006 )
Query!
Assessment method [2]
343197
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
343197
0
end of survey
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
343198
0
Risk perception scores for labelled and description only conditions will be determined. Scale is comprised of items from Fox-Glassman & Weber 2006, Barnett & Breakwell 2001, Slovic 2001 .
Query!
Assessment method [3]
343198
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
343198
0
end of survey
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
344176
0
Differences in satisfaction in participant’s decision to undertake further tests between labelled and description only scenarios will be analysed from participant responses to the question "How satisfied are you with your decision in the above scenario?" Response options range from 1 (definitely will not) to 10 (definitely will).
Query!
Assessment method [4]
344176
0
Query!
Timepoint [4]
344176
0
end of survey
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
General population from Australia, Canada and Ireland using a convenience sample of participants registered with the survey company Qualtrix
Query!
Minimum age
45
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
70
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
<45 years
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Prevention
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Computer generated randomisation to either "labelled" or "description only" scenarios. The researchers have no direct contact with survey participants.
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Qualtrix algorithm
Query!
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people receiving the treatment/s
The people administering the treatment/s
The people assessing the outcomes
The people analysing the results/data
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Data from a previous study comparing label and descriptive only scenarios reported a statistically significant between group difference of 0.86, SD 2.7 (Copp et al, 2017), however, we consider a 1-point difference in the 10-point future intentions to test scale to be the smallest clinically meaningful difference. With probability set at 0.8 and statistical significance set to p=0.05, our power calculation suggests we will need 115 participants per group (230 total). To ensure equal numbers from each country, the sample will be 240 (80 per country).
Primary analysis –We will analyse differences in intention to undertake further tests between labelled and description only scenarios using t-tests.
Secondary analyses – We will conduct 4 secondary analyses. First, using t-tests, we will report differences in satisfaction and confidence in participant’s decision to undertake further tests between labelled and description only scenarios. Second, we will also conduct simple linear regression with each variable including demographics. Levels of significance will be set at p=0.1. Significant variables from the linear regression will then be included in a series of multivariate regression analyses, where the personality characteristic measures noted above are layered in to assess their effect on the dependent variables intentions to pursue follow-on tests, satisfaction and confidence. Third, we will conduct exploratory analysis of whether intentions to pursue follow on tests (as well as satisfaction and confidence in decision) differ by illness condition as well as by label versus description only. These are considered exploratory given the smaller sample sizes at the individual illness level. Finally, we will produce a perceptual map of illnesses by label condition (eight illness by label combinations) based on subjects’ responses to six risk perception measures. Each subject rates two illness conditions on six risk perception measures. These six risk perception measures are factor analysed to reduce to two or three dimensions. The factor loadings can then be used to create a perceptual map of the eight illness by label combinations (Fox-Glassman & Weber, 2016).
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Not yet recruiting
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
20/03/2018
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
20/04/2018
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
20/04/2018
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
240
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
ACT,NSW,NT,QLD,SA,TAS,WA,VIC
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
9550
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [1]
9550
0
Query!
Country [2]
9551
0
Ireland
Query!
State/province [2]
9551
0
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
298222
0
University
Query!
Name [1]
298222
0
Bond University
Query!
Address [1]
298222
0
1 University Drv
Robina,
Australia, 4229
Query!
Country [1]
298222
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
University
Query!
Name
Bond University
Query!
Address
1 University Drv
Robina,
Australia, 4229
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
297329
0
None
Query!
Name [1]
297329
0
Query!
Address [1]
297329
0
Query!
Country [1]
297329
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
299229
0
Bond University Human research Ethics Committee
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
299229
0
1 University Drv Robina Australia, 4229
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
299229
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
299229
0
10/07/2017
Query!
Approval date [1]
299229
0
31/01/2018
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
299229
0
RO0016123
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
How clinicians describe a health problem influences the health decisions of patients. A recent systematic review (Nickel, et al., 2017) identified seven studies that provided participants with hypothetical scenarios that described health conditions. Each condition was described using two or more differing terminologies (medicalised or descriptive). For example, when a participant read a hypothetical scenario about polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), when the participant was given the name of the health condition (PCOS) compared with the description of a ‘hormonal imbalance’, they were more likely to have an ultrasound (Copp et al., 2017), or when told in the scenario their child had Gastro-oesophageal reflux compared with only a description of symptoms, participants had greater intention to treat the condition with medication (Scherer et al., 2013). These studies share several characteristics: subjects were young women, scenarios were hypothetical, and both investigated a single illness potentially prone to overdiagnosis. But they can only speculate on possible cognitive processes driving subjects’ decisions because they lack mechanisms to formally test possible psychological factors driving the changes in intentions. Using four hypothetical health conditions (each with a diagnostic labelled version and a description only version) we will analyse between group differences of participants intentions to undertake further tests. We will also report differences in satisfaction and confidence in decision making and explore the effects of participant characteristics (personality, health locus of control, regulatory focus, medical minimiser/maximiser), risk orientation, risk perceptions and stigma on intention to undertake further tests. Drawing from the extensive body of research on ‘perceptions of risk’ (Slovic 2000) and stigma (Brakel 2006), we will also explore differences in perceptions of risk between labelled and description only scenarios for each of four illnesses. Finally, we will conduct exploratory analysis of whether intentions to pursue follow on tests (as well as satisfaction and confidence in decision) differ by illness condition as well as by label versus description only. References: Nickel B, Barratt A, Copp T, Mynihan R, McCaffery K. Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminologies for the same condition influences management preferences. BMJ Open 2017 Copp T, McCaffery K, Azizi L, Doust J, Mol BWJ, Jansen J. Influence of the disease label ‘polycystic ovary syndrome’ on intention to have an ultrasound and psychosocial outcomes: a randomised online study in young women. Human Reproduction 2017 Scherer LD, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Tarini BA. Influence of “GERD” label on parents’ decision to medicate infants. Pediatrics 2013 Slovic P. (2000) The Perception of Risk. Brakel WH. Measuring health-related stigma – A review of the literature.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
79734
0
Dr Rae Thomas
Query!
Address
79734
0
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine
Bond University
1 University Drv
Robina, 4229
Query!
Country
79734
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
79734
0
+61 7 5595 5561
Query!
Fax
79734
0
Query!
Email
79734
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
79735
0
Rae Thomas
Query!
Address
79735
0
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine
Bond University
1 University Drv
Robina, 4229
Query!
Country
79735
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
79735
0
+61 7 5595 5561
Query!
Fax
79735
0
Query!
Email
79735
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
79736
0
Rae Thomas
Query!
Address
79736
0
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine
Bond University
1 University Drv
Robina, 4229
Query!
Country
79736
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
79736
0
+61 7 5595 5521
Query!
Fax
79736
0
Query!
Email
79736
0
[email protected]
Query!
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
Type
Is Peer Reviewed?
DOI
Citations or Other Details
Attachment
Plain language summary
No
We examined the effect of ‘labels’ versus ‘descrip...
[
More Details
]
Study results article
Yes
Thomas R, Spence MT, Roy R, Beller E (2020) A rand...
[
More Details
]
374169-(Uploaded-19-02-2021-12-46-18)-Journal results publication.pdf
Documents added automatically
Source
Title
Year of Publication
DOI
Embase
A randomised on-line survey exploring how health condition labels affect behavioural intentions.
2020
https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240985
N.B. These documents automatically identified may not have been verified by the study sponsor.
Download to PDF