Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-019-00095-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Previous studies have shown that a large proportion of women invited for bowel cancer screening prefer endoscopists of the same gender. We tested whether women who are initially disinclined to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening would be more willing to have the test with a female practitioner if they were also offered a decoy appointment with a male practitioner. We conducted two online experiments with women aged 35–54, living in England, who did not intend to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. In both experiments, women were randomised to two conditions: (1) control (appointment with a female endoscopist) and (2) decoy (two appointments to choose from, one with a male endoscopist and one with a female endoscopist). Experiment 1 (N = 302) verified the conditions for the decoy using a conventional intention scale, while experiment 2 (N = 300) tested how the presence of the decoy influences the likelihood of women choosing the appointment with the female practitioner in a discrete choice task. While experiment 1 showed that the presence of the decoy increased intentions to attend the appointment with the female practitioner (p = 0.02), experiment 2 confirmed that women were more likely to choose the appointment with the female endoscopist if they were also offered the decoy (p < 0.001). In both experiments, the presence of the decoy decreased perceived difficulty of the screening decision and cognitive effort required to make the decision. Offering disinclined women a male practitioner increased intention to have the test with an endoscopist of the same gender. This suggests that male screening practitioners can be used as decoy options to increase the likelihood that women choose female practitioners and facilitate the screening decision.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 164 kb)10865_2019_95_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Doyle, J. R., O’Connor, D. J., Reynolds, G. M., & Bottomley, P. A. (1999). The robustness of the asymmetrically dominated effect: Buying frames, phantom alternatives, and in- store purchases. Psychology and Marketing, 16, 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199905)16:3%3C225:AID-MAR3%3E3.0.CO;2-X CrossRef
Dumenci, L., Matsuyama, R., Riddle, D. L., Cartwright, L. A., Perera, R. A., Chung, H., et al. (2014). Measurement of cancer health literacy and identification of patients with limited cancer health literacy. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 205–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2014.943377 CrossRef
Farraye, F. A., Wong, M., Hurwitz, S., Puleo, E., Emmons, K., Wallace, M. B., et al. (2004). Barriers to endoscopic colorectal cancer screening: Are women different from men? The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 99, 341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04045.x CrossRef
Fennema, K., Meyer, D. L., & Owen, N. (1990). Sex of physician: Patient’s preferences and stereotypes. Journal of Family Practice, 30, 441–447.
Garcia, J. A., Paterniti, D. A., Romano, P. S., & Kravitz, R. L. (2003). Patient preferences for physician characteristics in university-based primary care clinics. Ethnicity and Disease, 13, 259–267.
Graffy, J. (1990). Patient choice in a practice with men and women general practitioners. British Journal of General Practice, 40, 13–15.
Herne, K. (1997). Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects. European Journal of Political Economy, 13, 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(97)00020-7 CrossRef
Hollands, G. J., Shemilt, I., Marteau, T. M., Jebb, S. A., Kelly, M. P., Nakamura, R., et al. (2013). Altering micro-environments to change population health behaviour: Towards an evidence base for choice architecture interventions. BMC Public Health, 13, 1218. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1218 CrossRef
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kerssens, J. J., Bensing, J., & Andela, M. G. (1997). Patient preference for genders of health professionals. Social Science and Medicine, 44, 1531–1540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00272-9 CrossRef
Krell, M., & Hui, S. K. F. (2017). Evaluating an instrument to measure mental load and mental effort considering different sources of validity evidence. Cogent Education, 4, 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1280256 CrossRef
Menees, S. B., Inadomi, J. M., Korsnes, S., & Elta, G. H. (2005). Women patients’ preference for women physicians is a barrier to colon cancer screening. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 62, 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(05)00540-7 CrossRef
Pan, Y., O’Curry, S., & Pitts, R. (1995). The attraction effect and political choice in two elections. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0401_04 CrossRef
Rubaltelli, E., Burra, P., Sartorato, V., Canova, D., Germani, G., Tomat, S., et al. (2008). Strengthening acceptance for xenotransplantation: The case of attraction effect. Xenotransplantation, 15, 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3089.2008.00474.x CrossRef
Stockwell, D. H., Woo, P., Jacobson, B. C., Remily, R., Syngal, S., Wolf, J., et al. (2003). Determinants of colorectal cancer screening in women undergoing mammography. The American journal of gastroenterology, 98, 1875–1880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07577.x CrossRef
Stoffel, S. T., Hirst, Y., Ghanouni, A., McGregor, L. M., Kerrison, R., Verstraete, W., et al. (2018). Testing active choice for the screening practioner’s gender in a randomised experimental online survey. Journal of Medical Screening. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969141318806322
Stoffel, S. T., Yang, J., Vlaev, I., & von Wagner, C. (2019). Testing the decoy effect to increase interest in colorectal cancer screening. PLoS ONE, 14, e0213668. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213668 CrossRef
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95, 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.3.371 CrossRef
Varadarajulu, S., Petruff, C., & Ramsey, W. H. (2002). Patient preferences for gender of endoscopists. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 56, 170–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(02)70173-9 CrossRef
Vlaev, I., Chater, N., Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D. A. (2011). Does the brain calculate value? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 546–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.09.008 CrossRef
von Wagner, C., Hirst, Y., Waller, J., Ghanouni, A., McGregor, L. M., Kerrison, R. S., et al. (2019). The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening—Evidence from online experiments. Patient Education and Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2019.04.001
- Offering male endoscopists as decoy option to nudge disinclined women to have colorectal cancer screening
S. T. Stoffel
R. S. Kerrison
C. von Wagner
- Springer US
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Print ISSN: 0160-7715
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3521