Evaluation of Letters Promoting Colorectal Cancer Testing

Recipients receive a letter promoting CRC screening.

The letter is enhanced with language that frames the situation in terms of losses. It also uses fear appeals by showing the risks of colorectal cancer, while also showing that screening is an achievable means to address those risks.

The letter explains why the kit was sent, which makes the purposes of the mailing clear to the recipient.

The pros and cons for screening with FIT kits and colonoscopy are presented. By showing an additional option, the table frames the FIT kit as the default option (since they are included in the mailer). In this situation, inaction is no longer the default option. Changing the default option increases the chance that the FIT kit is used. In addition, another viable alternative is provided (colonoscopy), which still contributes to the goal of the project (getting screened).

Comparisons of the mortality rates between screening with FIT kits, colonoscopy, and inaction (waiting for symptoms to appear) are displayed. Inaction is presented as a decoy, which has worse outcomes than either of the screening options. Due to this contrast, the inclusion of the decoy increases the appeal of the other screening options.