Background. Organized screening programs often rely on written materials to inform the public. In the United Kingdom, women invited for cervical cancer screening receive a leaflet from the National Health Service (NHS) to support screening decisions. However, information about screening may be too complex for people to understand, potentially hindering informed decision making. Objectives. We aimed to identify women’s difficulties in interpreting the leaflet used in England and negative and positive responses to the leaflet. Methods. We used a sequential mixed-methods design involving 2 steps: cognitive think-aloud interviews ( n = 20), followed by an England-wide survey ( n = 602). Data were collected between June 2017 and December 2018, and participants included women aged 25 to 64 y with varying sociodemographics. Results. Interview results revealed misunderstandings concerning screening results, benefits, and additional tests and treatment, although participants tended to react positively to numerical information. Participants were often unfamiliar with the potential harms associated with screening (i.e., screening risks), key aspects of human papillomavirus, and complex terms (e.g., dyskaryosis). Survey results indicated that interpretation difficulties were common ( M correct items = 12.5 of 23). Lower understanding was associated with lower educational level (β’s >0.15, P’s <0.001), lower numeracy scores (β = 0.36, P < 0.001), and nonwhite ethnicity (β = 0.10, P = 0.007). The leaflet was evaluated positively overall. Conclusions. Despite previous user testing of the leaflet, key information may be too complex for some recipients. As a consequence, they may struggle to make informed decisions about screening participation based on the information provided. We discuss implications for the improvement of communications about screening and decision support.

Background. Policy makers and program managers need to better understand consumers' perceptions of their energy use and savings to design effective strategies for promoting energy savings. Methods. We reviewed 14 studies from the emerging interdisciplinary literature examining consumers' perceptions electricity use by specific appliances, and potential savings. Results. We find that: (1) electricity use is often overestimated for low-energy consuming appliances, and underestimated for high-energy consuming appliances; (2) curtailment strategies are typically preferred over energy efficiency strategies; (3) consumers lack information about how much electricity can be saved through specific strategies; (4) consumers use heuristics for assessing the electricity use of specific appliances, with some indication that more accurate judgments are made among consumers with higher numeracy and stronger pro-environmental attitudes. However, design differences between studies, such as variations in reference points, reporting units and assessed time periods, may affect consumers' reported perceptions. Moreover, studies differ with regard to whether accuracy of perceptions was evaluated through comparisons with general estimates of actual use, self-reported use, household-level meter readings, or real-time smart meter readings. Conclusion. Although emerging findings are promising, systematic variations in the measurement of perceived and actual electricity use are potential cause for concern. We propose avenues for future research, so as to better understand, and possibly inform, consumers' perceptions of their electricity use. Ultimately, this literature will have implications for the design of effective electricity feedback for consumers, and related policies.

Many strategies for reducing residential energy consumption-including product labelling programs, subsidies for the purchase of efficient devices, behavioral programs that encourage efficient energy use, and others-rely on building owners and end users to make informed investment and operational decisions. These strategies may be ineffective if consumers are unaware of how much electricity is used by different devices in their homes and buildings. This study therefore compares consumers' perceptions of their appliances' electricity use to these appliances' actual direct-metered electricity consumption. Using an online survey, 118 homeowners from Austin, Texas were asked to estimate the energy consumption of six household devices which were monitored in the participants' homes. Homeowners were randomly assigned to assess their appliance-specific electricity use in terms of energy units (kWh/month) or energy cost units ($/month) for an average summer month. Consistent with previous studies, participants overestimated the energy consumed by their low energy consuming devices and slightly underestimated that of their most energy-consuming device. Results also showed that responses of the experimental groups estimating their consumption in energy units and energy cost units were similar, the accuracy of the two groups' perceptions was similar, and levels of confidence in the two groups were similar. These results suggest that targeted information campaigns focused on air conditioning energy consumption and device power reduction opportunities could improve consumer decision-making to save energy and reduce demand.

Measuring real-world impact is vital for demonstrating the success of a project and one of the most direct ways to justify taxpayers’ contributions towards public funding. Impact reporting should identify and examine the potential positive and negative consequences of the continuing operations of a proposed project and suggest strategies to expand, further develop, mitigate, avoid or offset them. Designing a tool or methodology that will capture the impact of collaborative research and innovation projects related to sustainability requires input from technical experts but also from experts in the domains of survey design and communication. Without survey design insights and testing it can be very difficult to achieve unambiguous and accurate reporting of impacts. This paper proposes six key recommendations that should be considered for those monitoring projects when identifying metrics and designing a sustainability impact report. These recommendations stem from a series of in-depth interviews about sustainability and innovation impact reporting with research project co-ordinators in the process industries (e.g., cement, ceramics, chemicals, engineering, minerals and ores, non-ferrous metals, steel and water sectors). Our results show that factors such as ambiguous terminology, two-in-one questions, the stage of the project, over-hypothetical estimates, inadequate formats and alternatives and lack of guidelines can negatively influence the data collected in usual project monitoring activities and jeopardise the overall validity of the reporting. This work acts as a guideline for those monitoring to improve how they ask for impact data from projects, whether they are introducing new impact metrics or evaluating existing ones.

No abstract