BMJ 2001;322:526-528 ( 3 March )

Primary care

Women's understanding of a "normal smear test result": experimental questionnaire based study

Theresa M Marteau, professor of health psychology, ^a Vicky Senior, research fellow, ^a Peter Sasieni, senior scientist. ^b

^a Psychology and Genetics Research Group, King's College, London, London SE1 9RT, ^b Imperial Cancer Research Fund, Mathematics, Statistics and Epidemiology Laboratory, London WC2A 3PX

Correspondence to: T M Marteau theresa.marteau{at}kcl.ac.uk

Objectives: To describe women's understanding of a negative smear test result when presented using the term "normal smear result," as required by the NHS cervical screening programme, and to evaluate the impact on understanding of different ways of presenting the residual risk inherent in such a result.
Design: Experimental questionnaire based study.
Interventions: Participants were asked to imagine that they had received a normal smear result. The meaning of this result was then presented using different combinations of three different expressions of residual risk of having or developing cervical cancer over the next five years: a verbal probability of absolute risk (low risk), a numerical probability of absolute risk (1 in 5000), or a numerical probability of risk relative to an unscreened woman (five times lower).
Participants: 1027 women aged 20 to 64.
Results: When informed only that their smear result was normal, 52% (80 of 153 women) of participants correctly understood that this entailed a residual risk of cervical cancer, compared with 70% (107 of 152) given the additional sentence explaining the meaning of a normal smear result using a verbal probability of absolute risk (difference 18%; 95% confidence interval 7% to 29%). Additionally, explaining the results using a numerical probability of absolute or relative risk did not increase the proportion who correctly understood that there was a residual risk of cervical cancer.
Conclusions: NHS policy for reporting normal smears needs to change to make it a definite requirement that the reporting of a "normal smear result" is accompanied by a sentence stating that this means a low risk for having or developing cervical cancer in the next five years.

---

© BMJ 2001
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial

Charlotte A M Paddison, Helen C Eborall, Stephen Sutton, David P French, Joana Vasconcelos, A Toby Prevost, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, and Simon J Griffin
BMJ 2009 339: b4535. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study

Ros Bramwell, Helen West, and Peter Salmon
BMJ 2006 333: 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

A simple statement can increase women's understanding of a normal smear test result
BMJ 2001 322: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Paddison, C. A M, Eborall, H. C, Sutton, S., French, D. P, Vasconcelos, J., Prevost, A T., Kinmonth, A.-L., Griffin, S. J (2009). Are people with negative diabetes screening tests falsely reassured? Parallel group cohort study embedded in the ADDITION (Cambridge) randomised controlled trial. BMJ 339: b4535-b4535 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Goldsmith, M R, Austoker, J, Marsh, G, Kehoe, S T, Bankhead, C R (2008). Cervical screening result communication: a focus-group investigation of English women's experiences and needs. Qual Saf Health Care 17: 334-338 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Bramwell, R., West, H., Salmon, P. (2006). Health professionals' and service users' interpretation of screening test results: experimental study. BMJ 333: 284- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Michie, S., Lester, K., Pinto, J., Marteau, T. M. (2005). Communicating Risk Information in Genetic Counseling: An Observational Study. Health Educ Behav 32: 589-598 [Abstract]  
• Anhang, R., Goodman, A., Goldie, S. J. (2004). HPV Communication: Review of Existing Research and Recommendations for Patient Education. CA Cancer J Clin 54: 248-259 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Maissi, E., Marteau, T. M, Hankins, M., Moss, S., Legood, R., Gray, A. (2004). Psychological impact of human papillomavirus testing in women with borderline or mildly dyskaryotic cervical smear test results: cross sectional questionnaire study. BMJ 328: 1293- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Saslow, D., Runowicz, C. D., Solomon, D., Moscicki, A.-B., Smith, R. A., Eyre, H. J., Cohen, C. (2002). American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Cervical Neoplasia and Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 52: 342-362 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Marteau, T. M, Kinmonth, A. L. (2002). Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?. BMJ 325: 78-80 [Full text]  
• Marteau, T. M, Hankins, M., Collins, B. (2002). Perceptions of risk of cervical cancer and attitudes towards cervical screening: a comparison of smokers and non-smokers. Fam Pract 19: 18-22 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more>>