‘Exploring the Influence of Social Media Influencers on Intention to Attend Cervical Screening in the UK: Utilising the Theory of Planned Behaviour’

Abstract

Objectives

Cervical cancer is 99.8% preventable when detected early; however, uptake of screening in the United Kingdom is at a 20-year low. Recently, a number of social media influencers have video logged about their experiences of cervical screening through narrative communication with their audience. Here we aimed to explore if accessing cervical screening information from a social media influencer can impact the theory of planned behaviour variables and predict intention to attend cervical screening appointments.

Design

Utilising a cross-sectional design a volunteer sample of 102 UK women (mean age = 28; SD = 3.10; range = 25–35) took part in an online questionnaire study.

Results

Hierarchical regression modelling revealed attitude as a significant predictor of intention to attend a cervical screening appointment and that social media influencers affect attitudes of their audience, indirectly influencing intention to attend.

Conclusion

Health messages communicated by social media influencers are effective in promoting positive attitudes but not directly influence intention to attend towards cervical screening. Further research should explore influencer impact on attitudes towards this health behaviour with the ultimate aim of increasing attendance and consequently saving lives.

Keywords

cervical screening influencer health promotion health protective behaviour social media theory of planned behaviour Jade Goody effect

Introduction

Cervical cancer is the second most prevalent cancer among women worldwide¹ and is 99.8% preventable.² In the UK, 3200 reported incidences per year result in 850 deaths.^3,4 Incidence increases after age 25⁵ with the highest in those aged 30–34 and 25–29.³Cervical screening is vital to detection and saving lives. Women in the UK over 24 are invited every 3 years, and in 2019–2020, 4.63 million were eligible.⁶ However, the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK has seen differing patterns of screening attendance.⁷

Half a million additional cervical screening attendances occurred between 2008 and 2009 during the media reporting of the British celebrity, Jade Goody, who died from the disease aged 27 (‘The Jade Goody effect’).⁸ However, current attendance is at a 20-year low,⁹ particularly in the most at risk 25 to 35 age group; equating to almost a quarter of a million young women.^4,10 With the Jade Goody effect no longer current¹¹ and the low uptake of screening, it is important to explore how health promotion can be targeted to reach them.

Cervical screening was traditionally promoted via leaflets and TV campaigns,¹² with the general practitioner (GP) pivotal.¹³ Now, patients are actively encouraged to manage their own health¹⁴ and seek information online.^15-17 Indeed, there is some evidence that targeted social media interventions can improve cancer awareness, screening intentions and uptake.¹⁸

This change has coincided with a rise in celebrity internet ‘influencers’ promoting products and lifestyle change.^19,20 Influencers, however, can have a prominent effect on health promotion and behaviour.^21,22 Marlow et al.²³ argue that influencers offer a style of ‘narrative communication’ enabling a memorable social connection. (previously seen with the ‘Jade Goody effect’). Previously, Kreuter et al.²⁴ found narrative communications (testimonials and storytelling) were important tools for cancer prevention and control. This type of communication was evident when fashion blogger Sarah Ashcroft, and YouTube star Zoë Sugg, video logged (a blog with mostly video content) preparing for, attending and sharing feelings and fears whilst having their cervical screening appointments.^25,26 This type of content creates an intimate relationship with influencer and audience²⁷ and is pivotal to influencer success in changing audience behaviours.²⁸

However, not all influencer health advice is credible, and they may be sponsored to produce content (SponCon); indeed, influencers were paid to advocate Allergan breast implants when they had been withdrawn from circulation by the Federal Drugs Agency (FDA).²⁹ The potential access to untrustworthy information is a cause for concern, particularly as young adults are often not health literate.³⁰ However, being able to predict individual’s intention to perform healthy behaviours is key.

The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is the most widely used model for predicting intention^31-35 and as a precursor of behaviour.³⁶ The TPB has wide applicability.^37-40 In the TPB attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control (PBC) are key. In terms of screening behaviours, women are more likely to intend to attend screening if they have a positive attitude to it^41,42 and if they believe that significant others will approve (subjective norms).⁴³ If they feel they have good access to screening (perceived behavioural control), they are more likely to attend.¹⁴ Anticipated regret (regret they may feel in the future) has been recently added^42,44-46 and has strengthened the predictive power for intentions^47,48 and the intention-behaviour relationship.⁴⁹

Social media influencers have the capacity to influence the TPB constructs to shape audiences intentions^19,50,51 as they are now viewed as part of individual’s social networks, influencing both social⁵² and health related norms.⁵³ Influencers also impact PBC by demonstrating the ease of attending a cervical screening appointment²⁶ breaking down perceived barriers.⁴² As more individuals turn to the internet for health advice, we explore the impact social media influencers have on the subjective norms, attitude, PBC, anticipated regret and intention to attend a cervical screening appointment in UK women over 25.

Method

Design

A cross-sectional design was employed utilising linear regression modelling. The outcome variables were the intention to attend cervical screening and the 4 predictor variables were as follows: subjective norms, attitude, PBC, anticipated regret (continuous) and previous exposure to ‘social influencers’ on social media speaking about the subject of cervical screening (SMIE) (a dichotomous variable). Participants were dichotomised into groups depending on whether they answered ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the question ‘have you viewed a social media influencer talking about cervical screening’ (SMIE) and labelled the ‘exposure to an influencer group’ (n = 62) and the ‘no exposure to an influencer group’ (n = 40). For the remaining analysis, the participants were analysed as a whole group.

Recruitment and Sample Size

Participants were recruited as a volunteer sample where they responded to the study details (summary about the project and a screenshot of the recruitment poster) through extensive sharing via social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram), further an email and recruitment poster was shared though the organisation Mercy UK and around the Leeds Beckett University (LBU) campus.

To ensure sufficient statistical power, the following sample size calculation was undertaken outlined by Cohen⁵⁴ for multiple regression with power set at .80 and an α = .05. Thus, to gain a medium effect size with 5 predictors, a total sample size of 91 was required.⁵⁵

Measures

Participants completed a demographics questionnaire and the TPB questionnaire based on cervical screening behaviours by Walsh et al.⁴² (see supplementary information) adapted to include questions about social media influencers. This questionnaire was validated by a sample of women in Ireland (N = 3000) with Cronbach’s α values above .5, 42. The TPB/TRA was originally developed by Fishbein and Ajzen^34,56 and has been used widely in health-related research including research into cervical screening.^57-60

Questions assessing attitudes, subjective norms, PBC and anticipated regret were measured on 5-point scales. Attitude was measured by responses to the question: ‘For me, going for a cervical screening appointment within the next 3 months would be…’ using 8 adjective scales (reassuring, unpleasant, embarrassing, unwise, important, worrying, worthwhile and healthy). Subjective norms by the responses to ‘most people who are important to me would think that I should go for a cervical screening appointment within the next 3 months’ and ‘most people who are important to me would approve of me attending for a cervical screen in the next 3 months if I am given the chance’. PBC the responses to: ‘How easy or difficult would it be for you to go for a cervical screening appointment within the next 3 months?’ The second question being ‘How confident are you that you will be able to go for a cervical screening appointment within the next 3 months’. Finally, intention was measured by the responses to: ‘I intend to go for a cervical screening appointment within the next 3 months’ and ‘I will try to go for a screening appointment within the next 3 months’. Anticipated regret was measured using 5 items using the question: ‘How would you feel if you did not attend for a smear test in the next 3 months when given a chance?’ on 5 items (anxious, tense, guilty, worried and regretful).

The questions were scored from 1 to 5, and reverse scored if they were a positive statement. Therefore, the higher the participant’s score, the more favourable the social norms, PBC, attitude and intention to attend for a cervical screening appointment. The grouping of participants and then dichotomous variable of whether the participant had viewed an influencer talk about cervical screening was coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes.

Procedure

The study was conducted online, and the questionnaires (demographics and TPB questionnaire) were administered via the online via the online questionnaire builder Qualtrics™. Prior to the TPB questionnaire, participants were asked about whether they had viewed an influencer talk about cervical screening. Post questionnaire completion, participants were debriefed and thanked for their time. The anonymised data were downloaded from Qualtrics™ directly into IBM SPSS version 26.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval from Leeds Beckett University (LBU) was obtained on 16.01.2020 (67 875). The study conformed to the Association of Internet Researcher’s and British Psychological Society’s ethical guidelines on Internet Mediated Research (IMR).⁶¹

Missing Data

Outliers were removed and 55 participants were excluded due to ≥40% incomplete responses. The remaining missing values accounted for 1.7% of the final data set, and these were not imputed due to the potential impact on reliability and validity.⁶²

Statistical Analysis

The data were exported from Qualtrics into SPSS (V. 26) and relevant assumption checks performed. A one-way ANOVA was conducted with exposure to an influencer and no exposure to an influencer as factors. Following correlation analyses on predictor (attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and anticipated regret and previous exposure to ‘social influencers’ on social media speaking about the subject of cervical screening) and outcome variable (intention to attend cervical screening), a hierarchical multiple regression was performed. We anticipated the TPB variables to covary.

Results

Participants

One hundred and two female UK residents aged between 25 and 35 (mean age = 28 years; SD = 3.10) (see Table 1) were recruited were recruited as these are the target population with low screening uptake.^4,10

Table 1.

Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample dichotomised by exposure to social media (N = 102).

Demographic	Exposure to an influencer (N = 62)	No exposure to an influencer (N = 40)	Total
Mean age in years (SD)	27 (3.33)	29 (2.75)	28 (3.10)
Marital status mean (%)
Single	28 (45.16%)	21 (52.5%)	49 (48.04%)
Married	15 (9.3%)	14 (35%)	29 (28.43%)
Living with partner	19 (30.65%)	4 (10%)	23 (22.5%)
Divorced	1 (1.61%)	0 (0%)	1 (.98%)
Education mean (%)
Degree/higher degree	37 (59.68%)	26 (65%)	63 (61.76%)
A level, highers/equivalent	19 (30.65)	7 (17.5%)	26 (25.49%)
BTEC/GNVQ	3 (4.84%)	4 (10%)	7 (6.86%)
GCSE (Grade A–C)	2 (3.23%	2 (5%)	4 (3.92%)
GCSE (Grade D–G)	1 (1.61%)	1 (2.5%)	2 (1.96%)
Employment mean (%)
Employed (full-time)	29 (46.77%)	23 (57.5%)	52 (50.98%)
Employed (part-time)	13 (20.97%)	5 (12.5%)	18 (17.65%)
Self-employed	5 (8.06%)	0 (0%)	5 (4.9%)
Unemployed	2 (3.23%)	6 (15%)	8 (7.84%)
University student	12 (19.35%)	5 (12.5%)	17 (16.67%)
College student	1 (1.61%)	1 (2.5%)	2 (1.96%)
Ethnicity mean (%)
White British	59 (95.16%)	36 (90%)	95 (93.14%)
Other white background	1 (1.61%)	1 (2.5%)	2 (1.96%)
White and Asian	1 (1.61%)	0 (0%)	1 (.98%
Black African	0 (0%)	2 (5%)	2 (1.96%)
Mixed background	1 (1.61%)	0 (0%)	1 (.98%)
Other	0 (0%)	1 (2.5%)	1 (.98%)

Equal variances were identified across the sample for intention, PBC, anticipated regret and subjective norms (P ≥ .54); however, unequal variances were identified in attitude (P = .046). Therefore, for attitude, a Spearman’s Rho correlation coefficient was utilised. Internal consistency scores for subjective norms were acceptable (α = .61), for attitude and PBC good, (α = .76; α = .70) and for intention moderately low (α = .56). ANOVA is relatively robust to violation of this assumption when sample sizes are relatively equal and no group exceeds a ratio of 4:1 for largest to smallest⁶³ as in this current study. The Skewness and Kurtosis values showed that for all variables, skewness (≥−1.28) and kurtosis (≥−1.84) values are between +2 and −2 demonstrating a normal distribution.⁶⁴

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed and there was no significant effects at P < .05 for intention (F (1,97) = .65, P = .423), PBC, (F (1, 100) = 1.15, P = .287), subjective norms (F (1,100) = 2.2, P = .141) or anticipated regret (F (1, 69) = 1.49, P = .226). However, a significant effect was demonstrated for exposure to influencers for attitude (F (1, 95) = 4.42, P = .038), with the mean score for the exposure group (M = 25.6, SD = 1.83) being significantly higher than the no exposure group (M = 24.6, SD = 2.37), (See Table 2)

Table 2.

Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the major study variables and ANOVA (N=102).

Variable	Exposure to an influencer (N = 62)	No exposure to an influencer (N = 40)	ANOVA P value
Variable	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	ANOVA P value
Intention	7.25 (2.06)	6.87 (2.6)	423
Attitude	25.55 (1.83)	24.65 (2.37)	045*
PCB	8.94 (1.52)	8.58 (1.85)	941
SN	7.95 (1.38)	7.53 (1.47)	.141
AR	14.23 (5.41)	12.48 (6.51)	.226

*significant at <.05.

SD = standard deviation. PBC = perceived behavioural control; SN = subjective norm; AR = anticipated regret.

Table 3 presents the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients for the TPB variables. Social media influencer exposure was included as a dichotomous variable and performed as a point-biserial correlation. Intention was significantly correlated with attitude, perceived behavioural control and anticipated regret (P < .001) however not to social norms nor exposure to a social media influencer. Social norms and perceived behavioural control were significantly correlated (P < .001) but not to any other variable. Table 4 presents the percentage of the total participant sample who had gained information about cervical screening from each of the sources below, and participants could select more than 1 choice. It was clear that primary care was the most popular source for cervical screening information with 60.8% of the sample sourcing information for GPs and 45.1% from practice nurses; however, 42.2% said they gained information from the internet, family and friends were (28.4 and 24.5%, respectively) and newspapers only 6.9%. A chi-square test of independence with Fisher’s exact test a significant association between viewing a social media influencer and gaining information from a doctor χ2 (1, n = 102) = .3.8, P = .04 and from friends χ2 (1, n = 102) = .5.8, P = .013. For the other categories, no significant associations were found χ2 (1, n = 102) ≤ 2.51, P ≤ .272.

Table 3.

Spearman’s correlations of the major study variables (N = 102).

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
1.Intention	-	.33**	.27**	.07	−.08	.33**
2.Attitude	.33**	-	.35**	0	−.18	.36**
3.PBC	.27**	.35**	-	.45**	−.11	.31**
4.SN	.07	0	.45**	-	−.15	.1
5.SMIE	−.08	−.18	−.11	-.15	-	−.15
6. AR	.33**	.36**	.31**	.1	−.15	-

**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

PBC = perceived behavioural control; SN = subjective norms; SMIE = social media influencer exposure; AR = anticipated regret.

Table 4.

Participants sources of information regarding cervical screening (N = 102).

Source of information about cervical screening	Percentage of participants, %
Doctor	60.8
Practice nurse	45.1
Internet	42.2
Family	28.4
Friend	24.5
Newspaper	6.9
Television	0
Radio	0

All assumptions prior to proceeding to regression modelling were met including Cook’s distance, lack of multicollinearity, independence of errors, lack of homoscedasticity, normally distributed error and non-zero variances.

Hierarchical regression

Regression

Table 5 shows the hierarchical regression scores for each predictor: attitude, social norms, PBC and anticipated regret. Attitude was initially entered and this model was statistically significant F (1, 68) = 6.25; P = .015 explaining 8.4% of the variance of intention, followed by subjective norms and PBC and this model was not statistically significant F (3, 66) = 2.03; P = .118 and did not contribute to the variance of intention. Anticipated regret was added and was not statistically significant F (4, 65) = 2.39; P = .060 but contributed to 4.3% of the variance.

Table 5.

Hierarchical regression scores (N = 102).

Predictor	β	B	t	SE	R	R ²	R ² change
Step 1					.29	.08*
Attitude	.29*	.31	2.5	.12
Step 2					.29	.09	.00
Attitude	.28*	.3	2.16	.14
SN	.02	.02	.12	.19
PBC	.01	0.1	.05	.18
Step 3					.36	.13	.04
Attitude	.23	.24	1.68	.14
SN	.03	0.3	.18	.19
PBC	−.04	−.04	−.23	.18
AR	.23	.08	1.8	.04

Note. Statistical significance: *P < .05; SMIE = social media influencer exposure; PBC = perceived behavioural control; SN = subjective norm; AR = anticipated regret; dependent variable = intention.

Discussion

Here we predicted there would be a significant difference in the attitude, PBC, subjective norms and anticipated regret of the participants who had been exposed to a social media influencer talking about cervical screening information than those who had not. We also predicted that the TPB variables and being exposed to a social media influencer talking about cervical screening information would each have a significant predictive effect on the intention to attend a cervical screening appointment. There was partial support for this, in that attitude was found to be the sole significant predictor of intention to attend cervical screening but explaining only 8.4% of the variance. Social norms, PBC, anticipated regret and being exposed to an influencer were not significant predictors of intention. Similarly, only attitudes were found to be significantly higher (more positive) in the exposure group compared to the no exposure group.

However, viewing an influencer talk about cervical screening was not a significant predictor of intention to attend an appointment, at odds with previous literature regarding social media influencers’ effect on intentions.^51,65-67 Although, this research often surrounded ‘purchase’ intention as opposed to the intention to participate in health behaviours. Similarly, research within the health behaviour domain which demonstrated effects of social media exposure on intentions largely focused on diet and exercise rather than behaviours involving medical contact.⁶⁸ This may imply that influencers can only affect intentions for medical self-care and purchasing a product rather than attending a cervical screening appointment where barriers to attendance include fear of the findings and fear of pain.⁶⁹ To support this assertion, most women in this study would still access their doctor for cervical screening information (60.4% of participants), followed by a practice nurse (45.1%), then the internet (42.2%). Indeed our findings also show that those who had viewed a social media influencer also were significantly more likely to speak to a GP. Thus, traditional sources are still valued for young women and they have not migrated away as previous research has claimed.^16,68 This is supported by a recent survey that 9 out of ten individuals still have ‘confidence and trust’ their GPs.⁷⁰

However, attitude scores towards cervical screening were found to be significantly higher (and thus more positive) in the exposure to an influencer group and attitudes were also a significant predictor of intention. This supports previous research that influencers have the ability to shape the attitudes of their audience.^19,71 Thus, viewing an influencer video log or talk about screening information may have an indirect rather than a direct influence on cervical screening. This is an interesting finding as it does reveal a link with a potential influence on health protective behaviours.

In terms of the TPB, these findings support previous research from Marteau et al.⁷² and Godin and Kok⁷³ who found attitude to be a strong predictor of cervical screening intention and health protective behaviours⁷⁴ and that attitudes had a greater influence over intentions than the other TPB constructs⁷⁵ conforming they are fundamental to behaviour.⁷⁶ Thus, changing attitudes may be the most effective way to increase attendance for this particular age group.

In contrast, PBC and subjective norm scores were not found to be significantly different in between the 2 groups. This was surprising as previous research found that both variables could be impacted by influencers.^28,52 This implies that the content provided about cervical screening by influencers is not affecting these constructs. Considering PBC with reference to the TPB, this current study did not find this to be a significant predictor of cervical screening attendance. A finding partially supported by the previous meta-analysis from Cooke and French⁷⁵; however, Godin and Kok⁷³ found intentions were strongly associated with PBC when applied to screening attendance; however, it must be noted the review is not current. Thus, the previously identified barriers preventing cervical screening attendance such as ease if information access and costs (due to time away from work or travel)⁴² may not be relevant now. In the UK, cervical screening is free and accessible via internet booking and offered by doctors, nurses and within specialist clinics. For subjective norms, the current findings are contrary to previous research highlighting that this was strongest predictor of intention and behaviour in cervical screening uptake.^75,77 Targeting social norms has been the focus of NHS campaigns to increase cervical screening attendance, but as demonstrated here, this would not be an effective intervention for this age group

Furthermore, anticipated regret was also not found to be significantly different between the exposure to an influencer group and the no exposure group. No previous research had explored the direct relationship between influencers and anticipated regret, and this was inferred from previous research into exemplar regret and observers being more likely to partake in the behaviour they observed the individual not doing.⁷⁸ Alternatively, the material being presented by influencers may not highlight anticipated regret, talking mainly about their experience of attending rather than the consequences of not attending. Additionally, we also found that anticipated regret was not a significant predictor of the intention to attend cervical screening. This opposes the results of previous studies including Walsh et al.⁴² where ‘anticipated regret’ significantly added to the model^46,47,79 and that intention to seek medical help for cancer is associated with higher levels of anticipated regret.⁸⁰

Thus, the TPB model is not completely supported by the current study as this model suggests all 3 factors: subjective norms, PBC and attitude to be all significant predictors of intentions. Additionally, the variables only accounted for 14% of the variance in intention to attend a cervical screening appointment, much smaller than the 41% found in the Walsh et al.’s⁴² study. This suggests for the current study’s demographic, and it highlights there may be other factors that are also significant predictors (not yet identified) of intention for this age group to perform this particular health behaviour. Future studies should explore whether screening behaviour has actually been enacted and explore the motivation for attending to enable further exploration of a potential behaviour-intention gap.

A limitation of this study is that it did not explore whether the behaviour was actually performed, focussing only on intention. Intentions do not always lead directly to performing a behaviour; the behaviour-intention gap defined by Sheeran and Webb⁸¹ suggested approximately only one half of intentions translate into behaviour. It is possible that social desirability could have affected the results; however, we aimed to minimise this by using an online survey with validated instruments and reassuring participants that the data was anonymised and using validated instruments. Further, the study only focussed on a small demographic of predominantly white UK women, this does not reflect the social norms of the diverse UK population.⁸² A further limitation is the cross-sectional design, which provides only a snapshot of behaviours and intentions future research should employ longitudinal designs to explore behaviours and actual intentions over time.

However, the current study does explore an area which has not yet been clearly investigated and provides insight into the potential impact social media influencers can have on serious health decisions such as cervical screening. These findings suggest impact differs dependent on the level of importance. For example, influencers may successfully impact health protective behaviours such as dieting and exercise; indeed, there is a great deal of non-professional health updates accessed on social media particularly around the healthy diet discourse¹⁷ but their views may not be as trusted when it comes to medical checks such as cervical screening. However, they may indirectly influence intentions through shaping the attitudes of their audience. It would be pertinent to explore the mechanisms of how ‘influencers’ influence in relation to cervical screening intentions and if the ‘similarity-attraction effect’⁸³ is a factor, where individuals are more likely to take the advice of someone who was culturally similar to them. Knowledge of the extent to which influencers can impact different types of health behaviours would help inform effective health promotion campaigns. However, whilst there could be a role for influencers with regard to health messaging, it is important that any campaign involving them in the future should be robustly linked to the NHS and be free from sponsorship. It is also important to identify which platforms women target users are currently more likely to engage with when designing social media interventions.¹⁸ This is particularly true for harder to reach ethnic minorities or disabled women a currently priority for Jo’s Trust in the UK.⁸⁴

Conclusion

Women aged 25 to 35 in the UK currently have the highest cervical cancer incidence rate and the lowest levels of screening attendance. The finding that attitude is a significant predictor of intention to attend a cervical screening appointment and that influencers were able to indirectly impact intentions (by influencing attitude) suggest future health messaging should target attitudes about cervical screening with this age group. This could be communicated by social media influencers within NHS campaigns as an indirect but effective way of forming more positive attitudes to cervical screening, with the ultimate aim of increasing attendance and saving lives.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-ccx-10.1177_10732748221079480 – Supplemental Material for ‘Exploring the Influence of Social Media Influencers on Intention to Attend Cervical Screening in the UK: Utilising the Theory of Planned Behaviour’

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-ccx-10.1177_10732748221079480 for ‘Exploring the Influence of Social Media Influencers on Intention to Attend Cervical Screening in the UK: Utilising the Theory of Planned Behaviour’ by Naomi Fielden and Patricia Holch in Cancer Control

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval from was obtained from Leeds Beckett University, Psychology Research Ethics committee on 16.01.2020 (number 67875). The study conformed to the Association of Internet Researcher’s and British Psychological Society’s ethical guidelines on Internet Mediated Research (IMR) (BPS, 2017).

Correction (February 2024):

Article updated online to correct minor errors.

ORCID iD

Patricia Holch

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material for this article is available online.

References

Greenlee

Murray

Bolden

Wingo

. Cancer statistics, 2000. CA A Cancer J Clin. 2000;50(1):7-33.

Cancer Research UK . Cervical Cancer Statistics; 2017a. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer.

Cancer Research UK . Cervical cancer incidence by age . 2017b. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancerstatistics/statistics-bycancer-type/cervical-cancer/incidence.

Cancer Research UK . Cervical Cancer Mortality Statistics; 2017c. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer/mortality

Castanon

Sasieni

. Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20–24 years in England a cause for concern? Prev Med. 2018;107:21-28.

NHS Digital, Cervical Screening Programme, England - 2019-20 (NS), https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/cervical-screening-annual/england---2019-20

Reynolds

Tansey

. History of Cervical Cancer and the Role of the Human Papillomavirus, 1960–2000. Welcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL; 2009:38.

Lancucki

Sasieni

Patnick

Day

Vessey

. The impact of Jade Goody's diagnosis and death on the NHS cervical screening programme. J Med Screen. 2012;19(2):89-93.

Jo’s Trust . Increasing Cervical Screening Attendance; 2018. https://www.jostrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/cervical_screening_in_the_spotlight_2018_final.pdf.

10.

NHS UK . (2018, January 23). One in Three Women Don’t Attend Cervical Screening. https://www.sandbachgps.nhs.uk/one-three-women-uk-dont-attend-cervical-screening/.

11.

Bowring

Walker

. The" Jade Goody effect": what now for cervical cancer prevention? BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health. 2010;36(2):51.

12.

Public Health England . (2019, September 13). Cervical screening saves lives – highlights from the national campaign . https://phescreening.blog.gov.uk/2019/09/13/cervicalscreening-saves-lives-highlights-from-the-national-campaign/

13.

Ong

De Haes

Hoos

Lammes

. Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(7):903-918.

14.

Rokade

Kapoor

PKD

Rao

Rokade

Reddy

KTV

Kumar

. Has the internet overtaken other traditional sources of health information? Questionnaire survey of patients attending ENT outpatient clinics. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2002;27(6):526-528.

15.

Scullard

Peacock

Davies

. Googling children's health: reliability of medical advice on the internet. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(8):580-582.

16.

Fox

. Health Topics: 80% of Internet Users Look for Health Information Online. Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2011.

17.

Lynn

Rosati

Leoni Santos

Endo

. Sorting the healthy diet signal from the social media expert noise: preliminary evidence from the healthy diet discourse on Twitter. Int J Environ Res Publ Health. 2020;17(22):8557. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228557.

18.

Plackett

Kaushal

Kassianos

, et al. Use of social media to promote cancer screening and early diagnosis: Scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(11):e21582.

19.

Freberg

Graham

McGaughey

Freberg

. Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Publ Relat Rev. 2011;37(1):90-92.

20.

Kadekova

Holienčinová

. Influencer marketing as a modern phenomenon creating a new frontier of virtual opportunities. Commun Today. 2018;9(2).

21.

Webb

Joseph

Yardley

Michie

. Using the internet to promote health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of theoretical basis, use of behavior change techniques, and mode of delivery on efficacy. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(1):e4.

22.

Pilgrim

Bohnet-Joschko

. Selling health and happiness how influencers communicate on Instagram about dieting and exercise: mixed methods research. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1054.

23.

Marlow

Sangha

Patnick

Waller

. The Jade Goody effect: whose cervical screening decisions were influenced by her story? J Med Screen. 2012;19(4):184-188.

24.

Kreuter

Green

Cappella

, et al. Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33(3):221-235.

25.

Ashcroft

. (2019 March 17) My First Cervical Screening Vlog | Q & A With Doctor. [Videofile].Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G5AlRwl4wM

26.

Sugg

. (2019, August 30). Live Smear Test, Q&A With The Nurse & Office Group Discussion.[Video file]. Retrieved from. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uceXJ3d6xY

27.

Khamis

Ang

Welling

. Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’and the rise of Social Media Influencers. Celebr Stud. 2017;8(2):191-208.

28.

Vollenbroek

De Vries

Constantinides

Kommers

. Identification of influence in social media communities. Int J Web Based Communities. 2014;410(3):280-297.

29.

Lown Institute . 2019. https://lowninstitute.org/how-some-instagram-influencers-are-a-bad-influence-on-health/.

30.

Ratzan

Parker

. Introduction. In: Seldon

Zorn

Ratzan

Parker

, eds. National Library of Medicine Current Bibliographies in Medicine: Health Literacy. NLM Pub. No. CBM 2000-1 ed. National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000.

31.

Bish

Sutton

Golombok

. Predicting uptake of a routine cervical smear test: a comparison of the health belief model and the theory of planned behaviour. Psychol Health. 2000;15(1):35-50.

32.

Ajzen

Fishbein

. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall; 1980.

33.

Conner

Armitage

. Extending the theory of planned behavior: a review and avenues for further research. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1998;28(15):1429-1464.

34.

Ajzen

. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50(2):179-211.

35.

Fishbein

Ajzen

. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: an Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co; 1975.

36.

Kiriakidis

. Theory of planned behaviour: the intention-behaviour relationship and the perceived behavioural control (PBC) relationship with intention and behaviour. Int J Serv Ind Manag. 2015;3(2):40-51.

37.

Armitage

Conner

. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta‐analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001;40(4):471-499.

38.

Godin

Gagné

Maziade

Moreault

Beaulieu

Morel

. Breast cancer: the intention to have a mammography and a clinical breast examination application of the theory of planned behavior. Psychol Health. 2001;16(4):423-441.

39.

Forbes

Blanchard

Mummery

Courneya

. A comparison of physical activity correlates across breast, prostate and colorectal cancer survivors in Nova Scotia, Canada. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(4):891-903.

40.

Steadman

Rutter

. Belief importance and the theory of planned behaviour: comparing modal and ranked modal beliefs in predicting attendance at breast screening. Br J Health Psychol. 2004;9(4):447-463.

41.

O’Connor

Murphy

Martin

O’Leary

Sharp

. Motivators for women to attend cervical screening: the influential role of GPs. Fam Pract. 2014;31(4):475-482.

42.

Walsh

O’Reilly

Treacy

. Factors Affecting Attendance for a Cervical Smear Test: A Prospective Study; 2003.

43.

Kim

Eys

Robertson-Wilson

Dunn

Rellinger

. Subjective norms matter for physical activity intentions more than previously thought: reconsidering measurement and analytical approaches. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2019;43:359-367.

44.

Caso

Carfora

Starace

Conner

. Key factors influencing Italian mothers’ intention to vaccinate sons against HPV: the influence of trust in health authorities, anticipated regret and past behaviour. Sustainability. 2019;11(23):6879.

45.

Hamilton

Kirkpatrick

Rebar

White

Hagger

. Protecting young children against skin cancer: parental beliefs, roles, and regret. Psycho Oncol. 2017;26(12):2135-2141.

46.

Sandberg

Conner

. Anticipated regret as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: a meta‐analysis. Br J Soc Psychol. 2008;47(4):589-606.

47.

Abraham

Sheeran

. Acting on intentions: the role of anticipated regret. Br J Soc Psychol. 2003;42(4):495-511.

48.

Brewer

DeFrank

Gilkey

. Anticipated regret and health behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 2016;35(11):1264.

49.

Sheeran

Orbell

. Implementation intentions and repeated behaviour: augmenting the predictive validity of the theory of planned behaviour. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1999;29(2‐3):349-369.

50.

Lim

Radzol

Cheah

Wong . The impact of social media influencers on purchase intention and the mediation effect of customer attitude. Asian J Bus Res. 2017;7(2):19-36.

51.

Melo

. Traditional and influencers’ instagram advertising: An application of the theory of planned behaviour . (Doctoral dissertation). 2019. https://run.unl.pt/handle/10362/68346.

52.

Contractor

DeChurch

. Integrating social networks and human social motives to achieve social influence at scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci Unit States Am. 2014;111(suppl 4):13650-13657.

53.

Moran

Murphy

Frank

Baezconde-Garbanati

. The ability of narrative communication to address health-related social norms. Int Rev Soc Res. 2013;3(2):131-149.

54.

Cohen

. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. Academic; 1998.

55.

Green

. How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behav Res. 1991;26(3):499-510. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7

56.

Fishbein

Ajzen

. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall; 1980.

57.

Roncancio

Ward

Sanchez

, et al. Using the theory of planned behavior to understand cervical cancer screening among Latinas. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42(5):621-626.

58.

Barling

Moore

. Prediction of cervical cancer screening using the theory of reasoned action. Psychol Rep. 1996;79(1):77-78.

59.

Armstrong

. Predicting Cervical Screening in College Women: A Test of the Theory of Reasoned Action. University of Montana; 2001.

60.

Kim

Shin

Lee

. Application of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action to predicting cervix cancer screening behavior. J Prevent Med Publ Health. 2001;34(4):379-388.

61.

British Psychological Society . Ethics Guidelines for Internet-Mediated Research; 2017. INF206/04.2017. Leicester: Author https://www.bps.org.uk/sites/www.bps.org.uk/files/Policy/Policy-Files/EthicsGuidelinesforInternet-mediatedResearch(2017).pdf.

62.

Cokluk

Kayri

. The effects of methods of imputation for missing values on the validity and reliability of scales. Educ Sci Theor Pract. 2011;11(1):303-309.

63.

Tabachnick

Fidell

. Experimental Designs Using ANOVA. : Thomson/Brooks/Cole; 2007:724.

64.

Gravetter

Wallnau

. Introduction to the t statistic. Essential Stat Behav Sci. 2014;8:252.

65.

Rebelo

. How Influencers’ Credibility on Instagram is Perceived by Consumers and its Impact on Purchase Intention (Doctoral Dissertation); 2017.

66.

Jiménez-Castillo

Sánchez-Fernández

. The role of digital influencers in brand recommendation: Examining their impact on engagement, expected value and purchase intention. Int J Inf Manag. 2019;49:366-376.

67.

Lisichkova

Othman

. The Impact of Influencers on Online Purchase Intent. (Doctoral Dissertation); 2017. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?dswid=4559&pid=diva2%3A1109584.

68.

Byrne

Kearney

MacEvilly

. The role of influencer marketing and social influencers in public health. Proc Nutr Soc. 2017;76(OCE3).

69.

Waller

Bartoszek

Marlow

Wardle

. Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: a population-based survey. J Med Screen. 2009;16(4):199-204.

70.

NHS UK . NHS GP Patient Survey; 2019. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/2019/07/11/gp-patient-survey-2019/.

71.

Grafström

Jakobsson

Wiede

. The Impact of Influencer Marketing on Consumers' Attitudes; 2018.

72.

Marteau

Hankins

Collins

. Perceptions of risk of cervical cancer and attitudes towards cervical screening: a comparison of smokers and non-smokers. Fam Pract. 2002;19(1):18-22.

73.

Godin

Kok

. The theory of planned behavior: a review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am J Health Promot. 1996;11(2):87-98.

74.

Cowling

Liao

. Testing an integrative theory of health behavioural change for predicting seasonal influenza vaccination uptake among healthcare workers. Vaccine. 2020;38(3):690-698.

75.

Cooke

French

. How well do the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behaviour predict intentions and attendance at screening programmes? A meta-analysis. Psychol Health. 2008;23(7):745-765.

76.

Trafimow

Fishbein

. The moderating effect of behavior type on the subjective norm-behavior relationship. J Soc Psychol. 1994;134(6):755-763.

77.

Finlay

Trafimow

Jones

. Predicting health behaviors from attitudes and subjective norms: between‐subjects and within‐subjects analyses. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1997;27(22):2015-2031.

78.

Van der Schalk

Kuppens

Bruder

Manstead

. The social power of regret: the effect of social appraisal and anticipated emotions on fair and unfair allocations in resource dilemmas. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015;144(1):151.

79.

Sandberg

Hutter

Richetin

Conner

. Testing the role of action and inaction anticipated regret on intentions and behaviour. Br J Soc Psychol. 2016;55(3):407-425.

80.

De Nooijer

Lechner

De Vries

. Social psychological correlates of paying attention to cancer symptoms and seeking medical help. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(5):915-920.

81.

Sheeran

Webb

. The intention–behavior gap. Sco Personal Psychol Compass. 2016;10(9):503-518.

82.

Mc Breen

Di Tosto

Dignum

Hofstede

. 2011 Second International Conference on Culture and Computing. IEEE; 2011:9-14.October). Linking norms and culture

83.

Reis

. Similarity-attraction effect. Encyclopedia Soc Psychol. 2007:875-876.

84.

Jo’s Trust . Physical Disability Report; 2019. https://www.jostrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/jos_physical_disability_report_0.pdf.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB