Affiliations of authors: VA Outcomes Group, Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, VT; and Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH
Correspondence to: Robin J. Larson, MD, VA Outcomes Group (111B), Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, VT 05009) (e-mail: robin.j.larson{at}dartmouth.edu).
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
This study was part of a larger telephone survey project that assessed Americans' attitudes about cancer screening, specifically mammography, PSA testing, and sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy; details about the methods have been published previously (3). The survey development process included focus groups, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing. The idea of asking questions about celebrity endorsements was actually raised by participants in the focus groups. The exact wording of the survey questions appears in the figures. The survey project was approved by the institutional review boards at Dartmouth Medical School (Hanover, NH) and the University of Massachusetts (Boston, MA).
Briefly, we used random-digit dialing to obtain a national probability sample of 4000 households with telephone service in the continental United States. The sample was further restricted to the groups for which the screening tests are most often recommendedwomen aged 40 years or older and men aged 50 years or older. Individuals with a history of cancer were excluded. From December 2001 through July 2002, professional interviewers from the Center for Survey Research at the University of Massachusetts completed telephone interviews with 500 eligible adults (360 women and 140 men). As suggested by the American Association of Public Opinion Research (4), we report two response rates: 72% (500/697) among those known to be eligible and 51% (500/984) among those estimated to be eligible (attempting to account for potentially eligible people among those who could not be contacted).
We restricted our analyses of each screening test to the subgroup of respondents who were most likely, according to current test-specific screening guidelines, to be screened by that test; i.e., the denominators were women aged 40 years or older (n = 360) for mammography, men aged 50 years or older (n = 140) for PSA testing, and all respondents aged 50 years or older (n = 344) for sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. We created weights to adjust for the differential probability of selection into our sample by accounting for the number of eligible adults and telephone lines in each household. We also created poststratification weights to match the age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, educational attainment, and region of the 2000 U.S. Census; however, because analyses using these weights yielded results that were nearly identical to those using only the probability weights (i.e., ±1%2%) and to avoid the assumptions inherent in poststratification weighting, we present only the results obtained using the probability weights. The characteristics of the study sample closely approximate those of adults of screening age in the United States. Comparisons were made using the chi-square test. All statistical tests were two-sided. The relationship between education level of respondents and their having seen or been influenced by an endorsement was adjusted for age using direct standardization. Analyses were performed using STATA statistical software (version 8.2; College Station, TX). The margins of error were ±5% for the mammography sample, ±8% for the PSA testing sample, and ±5.5% for the sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy sample.
When asked "Have you ever seen or heard celebrities like Rosie O'Donnell and Nancy Reagan talk about getting mammograms," 73% of women aged 40 years or older responded "yes" (Fig. 1). Of these women, 71% reported that what they had heard from celebrities had had no effect on their plans to undergo screening mammography, and 25% reported that it made them more likely to undergo screening mammography (Fig. 2). Respondents with higher educational attainment were less likely to have heard a celebrity endorsement of mammography (68% of those with at least some college education versus 72% of those with a high school or less education) but were more likely to have been positively influenced by what they had heard (30% versus 24% "more likely" to undergo mammography). However, neither finding was statistically significant (P = .40 and .31, respectively).
|
|
Approximately half (52%) of adults aged 50 years or older reported that they had "seen or heard celebrities like Katie Couric talk about getting a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy" (Fig. 1). Most (59%) of these respondents reported that what they had heard from celebrities had no effect on their plans to undergo screening by sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, and 37% reported that it made them more likely to undergo a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (Fig. 2). Statistically significantly more women than men reported that they had heard a celebrity endorsement of sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (60% versus 42%, P = .004); however, there was no statistically significant difference between the percentages of women and men who reported that having heard an endorsement made them "more likely" to undergo sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (38% of women versus 36% of men, P = .97). Respondents with higher educational attainment were more likely to have heard a celebrity endorsement of sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (54% of those with at least some college education versus 42% of those with a high school or less education, P = .03) and to report being positively influenced by what they had heard (38% versus 25% "more likely" to undergo sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, P = .08), although the latter effect was not statistically significant.
In summary, we found that more than one-half of the adults in this nationwide survey had seen or heard celebrity endorsements of cancer screening tests. Although most of the respondents who had heard such endorsements reported that the endorsement did not influence their likelihood of having the test, more than one-fourth of those who had seen or heard a celebrity endorsement reported that it made them more likely to undergo the promoted screening test. However, it is not known whether celebrity endorsements increase screening utilization among individuals who stand to benefit the most from the promoted screening test.
Our study has several limitations. First, our study was restricted to adults of recommended screening age. As a result, we have no information on whether celebrity endorsements affect screening utilization among individuals for whom screening is not recommended. Second, the responses reported here may be influenced by social desirability (i.e., the tendency of respondents to want to give what they perceive to be the "right answer"). If some respondents thought that the "right answer" was to not be influenced by celebrity endorsements, our results would underestimate their impact. On the other hand, if some respondents thought that the "right answer" was to be influenced by celebrity endorsements, our results would overestimate their impact. We cannot determine the net effect of social desirability on our findings. Third, as in any survey, the wording and placement of the questions and the self-reporting of responses could have affected the findings. Fourth, the selection of specific celebrity examples might have influenced the results.
Whether to undergo cancer screening is a complex decisionearly detection of cancer will help some people, but it can create problems for others, such as unnecessary testing and treatment (5). Consequently, screening is increasingly recognized as a two-edged sword. Indeed, multiple organizations (68) now actively encourage thoughtful discussion about cancer screening decisions, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently issued guidelines to facilitate informed decision making about cancer screening (9). Although some in the public health community may feel that the stronger the evidence of benefit for a screening test, the stronger the recommendation for screening should be, we argue that even with the strongest evidence, people need balanced and accurate information about both the benefits and harms of testing because individuals may assign different values to the tradeoffs involved.
Celebrity endorsements of cancer screening tests typically consist of one-sided messages that either assert that the celebrity's life was saved by a cancer screening test (Rudy Giuliani example) or suggest that the life of a loved one was lost due to a failure to be screened (Katie Couric example). There is little question that celebrities can have a powerful impact on the public and that their influence can be put to good use. However, when it comes to public health endorsements, we feel that celebrities should be judicious in using their powers of persuasion. It is appropriate for celebrities to discourage behaviors that jeopardize the health of others (such as driving while intoxicated or high-risk sexual behaviors) or to encourage healthy behaviors that have no obvious downsides (such as using bike helmets or avoiding tobacco) (10). However, when it comes to communicating about complex decisions such as cancer screening, the goal should not be to persuade but to inform. Thus, we see no obvious role for celebrity endorsement of cancer screening.
![]() |
NOTES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
(1) Falcon MSS. Giuliani defeats prostate cancer. USAToday.com. Available at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlighthealth/2002-10-14-giuliani_x.htm [Last accessed: April 6, 2004.]
(2) National Colorectal Cancer Research Alliance. "Don't end up saying 'if only." Get tested." Available at: http://www.eifoundation.org/national/nccra/pdfs/psa_katie.pdf. [Last accessed: April 6, 2004.]
(3) Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ Jr, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA 2004;291:718.
(4) American Association of Public Opinion Research. Standards and best practices. Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/default.asp?page=survey_methods/standards_and_best_practices/standard_definitions. [Last accessed: December 27, 2004.]
(5) Welch HG. Should I be tested for cancer? Maybe not and here's why. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 2004.
(6) Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
(7) Winker MA, Flanagin A, Chi-Lum B, White J, Andrews K, Kennett RL, et al. Guidelines for medical and health information sites on the Internet: principles governing AMA web sites. American Medical Association. JAMA 2000;283:16006.
(8) Department of Veterans Affairs. VHA Notice 99-02. Shared decision making. June 15, 1999. Available at: http://www.va.gov/publ/direc/health/notice/n9902.pdf. [Last accessed: April 8, 2004.]
(9) Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH, Shared Decision-Making Workgroup of the USPSTF. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med 2004;26:5666.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
(10) Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. The case for letting information speak for itself. Eff Clin Pract 2001;4:769.[Medline]
Manuscript received October 22, 2004; revised February 15, 2005; accepted February 18, 2005.
This article has been cited by other articles in HighWire Press-hosted journals:
Related Memo to the Media
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |