Trial Review

Did you know?

The ANZCTR now automatically displays published trial results and simplifies the addition of trial documents such as unpublished protocols and statistical analysis plans.

These enhancements will offer a more comprehensive view of trials, regardless of whether their results are positive, negative, or inconclusive.

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
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.
Scientific title
How health labels affect behavioural intentions and perceptions of illnesses in adults.
Secondary ID [1] 293607 0
NIL
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Trial acronym
Linked study record

Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Chronic Kidney disease Stage 3A 305865 0
Pre-diabetes 305867 0
Mild Hyperlipidaemia 305869 0
Mild Hypertension 305870 0
Condition category
Condition code
Public Health 305068 305068 0 0
Other public health

Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
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.
Intervention code [1] 299863 0
Behaviour
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.
Control group
Active

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).
Timepoint [1] 304239 0
end of survey
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).
Timepoint [1] 343196 0
end of survey
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 )
Timepoint [2] 343197 0
end of survey
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 .
Timepoint [3] 343198 0
end of survey
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).
Timepoint [4] 344176 0
end of survey

Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
General population from Australia, Canada and Ireland using a convenience sample of participants registered with the survey company Qualtrix
Minimum age
45 Years
Maximum age
70 Years
Sex
Both males and females
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Key exclusion criteria
<45 years

Study design
Purpose of the study
Prevention
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
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.
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Qualtrix algorithm
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
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
Intervention assignment
Other design features
Phase
Not Applicable
Type of endpoint/s
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).

Recruitment
Recruitment status
Not yet recruiting
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
20/03/2018
Actual
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
20/04/2018
Actual
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
20/04/2018
Actual
Sample size
Target
240
Accrual to date
Final
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
ACT,NSW,NT,QLD,SA,TAS,WA,VIC
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1] 9550 0
Canada
State/province [1] 9550 0
Country [2] 9551 0
Ireland
State/province [2] 9551 0

Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1] 298222 0
University
Name [1] 298222 0
Bond University
Country [1] 298222 0
Australia
Primary sponsor type
University
Name
Bond University
Address
1 University Drv
Robina,
Australia, 4229
Country
Australia
Secondary sponsor category [1] 297329 0
None
Name [1] 297329 0
Address [1] 297329 0
Country [1] 297329 0

Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Ethics committee name [1] 299229 0
Bond University Human research Ethics Committee
Ethics committee address [1] 299229 0
1 University Drv
Robina
Australia, 4229
Ethics committee country [1] 299229 0
Australia
Date submitted for ethics approval [1] 299229 0
10/07/2017
Approval date [1] 299229 0
31/01/2018
Ethics approval number [1] 299229 0
RO0016123

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.
Trial website
Trial related presentations / publications
Public notes

Contacts
Principal investigator
Name 79734 0
Dr Rae Thomas
Address 79734 0
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine
Bond University
1 University Drv
Robina, 4229
Country 79734 0
Australia
Phone 79734 0
+61 7 5595 5561
Fax 79734 0
Email 79734 0
[email protected]
Contact person for public queries
Name 79735 0
Rae Thomas
Address 79735 0
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine
Bond University
1 University Drv
Robina, 4229
Country 79735 0
Australia
Phone 79735 0
+61 7 5595 5561
Fax 79735 0
Email 79735 0
[email protected]
Contact person for scientific queries
Name 79736 0
Rae Thomas
Address 79736 0
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine
Bond University
1 University Drv
Robina, 4229
Country 79736 0
Australia
Phone 79736 0
+61 7 5595 5521
Fax 79736 0
Email 79736 0
[email protected]

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

Documents added automatically
SourceTitleYear of PublicationDOI
EmbaseA randomised on-line survey exploring how health condition labels affect behavioural intentions.2020https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240985
N.B. These documents automatically identified may not have been verified by the study sponsor.