RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: According to a 2020 study by the American Cancer Society, colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the third leading cause of cancer both in incidence and death in the United States. Nonetheless, CRC screening remains lower than that for other high-risk cancers such as breast and cervical cancer. Risk calculators are increasingly being used to promote cancer awareness and improve compliance with CRC screening tests. However, research concerning the effects of CRC risk calculators on the intention to undergo CRC screening has been limited. Moreover, some studies have found the impacts of CRC risk calculators to be inconsistent, reporting that receiving personalized assessments from such calculators lowers people's risk perception. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine the effect of using CRC risk calculators on individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening. In addition, this study aims to examine the mechanisms through which using CRC risk calculators might influence individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening. Specifically, this study focuses on the role of perceived susceptibility to CRC as a potential mechanism mediating the effect of using CRC risk calculators. Finally, this study examines how the effect of using CRC risk calculators on individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening may vary by gender. METHODS: We recruited a total of 128 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk who live in the United States, have health insurance, and are in the age group of 45 to 85 years. All participants answered questions needed as input for the CRC risk calculator but were randomly assigned to treatment (CRC risk calculator results immediately received) and control (CRC risk calculator results made available after the experiment ended) groups. The participants in both groups answered a series of questions regarding demographics, perceived susceptibility to CRC, and their intention to get screened. RESULTS: We found that using CRC risk calculators (ie, answering questions needed as input and receiving calculator results) has a positive effect on intentions to undergo CRC screening, but only for men. For women, using CRC risk calculators has a negative effect on their perceived susceptibility to CRC, which in turn reduces the intention to sign up for CRC screening. Additional simple slope and subgroup analyses confirm that the effect of perceived susceptibility on CRC screening intention is moderated by gender. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that using CRC risk calculators can increase individuals' intentions to undergo CRC screening, but only for men. For women, using CRC risk calculators can reduce their intentions to undergo CRC screening, as it reduces their perceived susceptibility to CRC. Given these mixed results, although CRC risk calculators can be a useful source of information on one's CRC risk, patients should be discouraged from relying solely on them to inform decisions regarding CRC screening.
RESUMEN
We examine how physicians' perceptions of two computerized provider order entry (CPOE) capabilities, standardisation of care protocols and documentation quality, are associated with their perceptions of turnaround time, medical error, and job demand at three phases of CPOE implementation: pre-go-live, initial use, and continued use. Through a longitudinal study at a large urban hospital, we find standardisation of care protocols is positively associated with turnaround time reduction in all phases but positively associated with job demand increase only in the initial use phase. Standardisation also has a positive association with medical error reduction in the initial use phase, but later this effect becomes fully mediated through turnaround time reduction in the continued use phase. Documentation quality has a positive association with medical error reduction in the initial use phase and this association strengthens in the continued use phase. Our findings provide insights to effectively manage physicians' response to CPOE implementation.
