Consumer versus expert opinions on bowel cancer screening videos: Findings from a co-design study.

Objective: To describe compare and assess expert and consumer evaluations of videos the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia to inform the future development of effective promotional materials.
Methods: From July to November, 2022 consumers (n = 487) were randomly assigned to see 3 of 15 videos and 34 "experts" (i.e., researchers, clinicians, and health promotion specialists) viewed all 15 videos. Participants completed 22 items reflecting positive and negative perceptions and perceived efficacy in encouraging screening participation. Multiple analyses of covariance assessed mean differences in expert and consumer ratings controlling for age and gender differences.
Results: Experts and consumers reported similar perceptions about videos, with no difference in the degree to which each would encourage kit completion. However, compared to those containing personal stories, experts rated instructional and informational videos significantly lower than consumers in terms of encouraging actions that facilitate kit completion.
Conclusions: Experts may underestimate the degree to which information and personal narratives resonate with consumers viewing bowel cancer screening videos.
Practical Implications: It is valuable to consult consumers when designing bowel cancer screening promotion and education videos as opposed to relying solely on expert opinion especially in the context of encouraging actions that lead to kit completion.
Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:Mark Jenkins reports financial support was provided by National Health and Medical Research Council. Mark Jenkins is a member of the Clinical Advisory Group for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)