J Med Internet Res. 2026 Feb 12;28:e82322. doi: 10.2196/82322.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although cancer screening is essential for early detection and an improved prognosis, screening beyond the recommended guidelines may increase the risk of false-positive results. Consequently, educating individuals about the potential harm of non-guideline-based cancer screening is essential; however, effective communication methods remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of educational videos in encouraging preferences for guideline-based cancer screening.
METHODS: This 3-arm pseudorandomized controlled trial was conducted in June 2025 using a Japanese online survey platform. Eligible respondents were working adults aged 30 to 60 years with no history of major cancer. Respondents were assigned to 1 of the following 3 video conditions: video A, which provided a logical explanation of false-positive risks; video B, which presented the narrative of a woman who received a false-positive result from breast cancer screening; and video C, which depicted a man who underwent unnecessary follow-up testing after tumor marker screening. The primary outcome was the preference for guideline-based cancer screening after watching the videos. The secondary outcomes included 7 self-reported video evaluation items, such as perceived relevance and clarity, assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. Differences in the primary outcome between video groups were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for covariates. Means and 95% CIs were calculated for each secondary outcome according to sex and video group. In addition, before-and-after changes in screening preferences were assessed using McNemar test, with a significance level of .05.
RESULTS: In total, 1200 respondents (400 per group) completed the survey. No statistically significant differences in the primary outcome were observed among the video groups. With reference to video A, the adjusted odds ratios for preferring guideline-based screening were 0.89 (95% CI 0.59-1.32) for video B and 0.98 (95% CI 0.65-1.46) for video C. Regarding secondary outcomes, male respondents rated video B less favorably than female respondents in terms of relevance and willingness to undergo guideline-based screening. The before-and-after comparison showed a significant change in preference for guideline-based screening (P=.04). These videos appeared to be more effective for individuals with an annual history of colorectal cancer screening than for those without such a history.
CONCLUSIONS: Educational videos have the potential to influence cancer screening preferences; however, no single video format has demonstrated clear superiority. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring educational materials to the target audience characteristics. Further research is required to develop effective strategies for encouraging guideline-based cancer screening.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000060549; https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000066119.
PMID:41678792 | DOI:10.2196/82322
