Innovation or Inconsistency? Framing Colorectal Cancer Guidelines to Improve Public Perceptions of Updated Screening Recommendations

Abstract

Effectively communicating how findings from population science inform patient-level decision-making about cancer prevention remains a challenge. Despite the substantial benefits associated with early detection of colorectal cancer, patient compliance with screening guidelines is suboptimal. One potential barrier to compliance is the language used by organizations to frame screening recommendations. Drawing on theory and research on verbal immediacy, the current study examines whether linguistically framing screening messages as being temporally immediate makes them more effective than non-immediate messages for encouraging people to adopt state-of-science screening recommendations. An online message design experiment was conducted with a sample of older adults ( N = 305). Results show temporally immediate frames are more effective at increasing behavioral intention to follow updated screening guidelines than temporally non-immediate frames. In addition, both response efficacy of a screening modality and perceived susceptibility to cancer moderate the relationship between message strategy and intention to screen.

Translating Science

“…The slippage in language use between scientists and laypeople goes unnoticed and unaddressed; at worst, the public is blamed for being too conservative or antiscience. Every article in this special issue addresses this problem in one way or another, from the need to identify stakeholders carefully and accommodate to their language (Gallois et al, 2017), to subtle issues around framing messages (Neil et al, 2017; de Vries, 2017), through to the multiplicity of meanings in the same domain among different groups of stakeholders (Howes & Kemp, 2017; Wray, 2017), and the influence of identity on how people communicate about science (Brooks, 2017; Strekalova et al, 2017).…”

“…In the context of health promotion, Neil et al (2017) also address questions of how issues of science should best be framed. In particular, this article grapples with the best way to communicate to stakeholders when scientific understanding of an issue has shifted.…”

“…The topics of the seven articles range across the STEM and medical fields. Three of them (Neil, Krieger, Kalyanaraman, & George, 2017; Strekalova et al, 2017; Wray, 2017) deal with various aspects of health care. Two (Gallois, Ashworth, Leach, & Moffat, 2017; de Vries, 2017) concern language around climate change and energy production.…”

Moving from Directives toward Audience Empowerment: A Typology of Recycling Communication Strategies of Local Governments

“…Typically, experts believe that the major challenges of science communication involve lack of education and misinformation from media [21]. While access to accurate information is a piece of the process, it is also important to recognize that audience interpretations and opinions of a scientific issue vary, based on the current public discourse on the scientific findings [22] and the framing of evidence [20] or recommendations [23].…”