Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach

Table 1 Characteristics of participants from Phase 1 – Interviews and Phase 2 – Participatory design sessions

	Phase 1 –Interviews	Phase 2 – Participatory design sessions
	Interviews (n = 15)	Session 1 (n = 4)	Sessions 2 and 3 (n = 6)	Session 4 (n = 2)	Session 5 (n = 2)
Demographics
Age (years), mean (SD)	43.9 (2.6)	43.5 (3.4)	44.2 (3.8)	55.5 (2.1)	58.0 (5.7)
(Youngest-oldest)	40 – 48	40 – 48	40 – 50	54 – 57	54 – 62
Educational level
Low^a	1 (6.7%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Middle	9 (60.0%)	1 (25.0%)	3 (50.0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
High	5 (33.3%)	3 (75.0%)	3 (50.0%)	2 (100%)	2 (100%)
Health Literacy*
NVS-D^b – low	5 (35.7%)
NVS-D – high	9 (64.2%)
FCCHL-D^c – low		2 (50.0%)	3 (60.0%)	1 (50.0%)	0 (0%)
FCCHL-D – high		2 (50.0%)	2 (40.0%)	1 (50.0%)	2 (100%)

SD Standard deviation
^*In Phase 1 one HL score is missing; in sessions 2 and 3 of Phase 2 also one HL score is missing
^aLow education = primary education or pre-vocational secondary education; middle education = secondary vocational education; high education = university of applied sciences or university
^bNewest Vital Sign in Dutch, which contains six questions regarding the interpretation of information on an ice cream nutrition label, with 4 points or less being defined as having low HL [51]
^cFunctional Communicative and Critical Health Literacy Scales in Dutch, which contains fourteen items measuring subjective skills on a 4-point scale. The total score is the average, ranging from 1 (low HL) to 4 (high HL) [52], with 3 points or less being defined as having low HL [53]

ISSN: 1472-6947