The Economic & Social Research Institute (ESRI) has published the findings of a new study investigating how different types of information about cervical screening affect trust and blame when screening results are not as expected.
The research was funded by the National Screening Service / ESRI Research Programme and focuses on how best to explain uncertainty in cervical screening in a way that supports trust and understanding.
Why this research matters
Cervical screening saves lives. However, it’s not perfect. Screening can result in false negatives and false positives. These experiences can be upsetting for women and can lead to blame and loss of trust in screening services.
This study looked at whether certain ways of explaining cervical screening could reduce blame towards laboratories and screening professionals, and help maintain trust in population-based screening programmes.
What the researchers studied
The ESRI researchers developed a set of communication tools, known as a decision aid, to explain how cervical screening works and why uncertainty exists.
These included:
- a journey map showing the steps involved in cervical screening
- a short video featuring a medical scientist explaining how samples are tested in the laboratory and why uncertainty can occur
- a diagram showing the laboratory testing pathway.
Eight hundred women in Ireland took part in the study. Each woman was randomly assigned to view different combinations of these materials, alongside standard cervical screening information. The researchers then measured levels of trust, blame and emotional responses.
What the study found
The study found that the video made a positive difference.
Women who watched the video were:
- less likely to blame laboratories for false positive or false negative results
- more likely to see medical scientists as skilled, professional and caring
- more likely to understand that false results are not fully controllable.
By hearing directly from a medical scientist, participants gained a better sense of the human expertise involved in testing and the limits of what screening can do.
The findings also showed that more information does not always mean better understanding.
The journey map and testing diagram, which were designed to increase transparency, unexpectedly led to higher levels of blame among some participants. This suggests that simply showing processes or pathways, without the right context or explanation, may not build trust on its own.
What this means for screening communications
The research highlights that how information is communicated matters as much as what information is shared.
Clear explanations that acknowledge uncertainty, show the real people behind the service, and are delivered in a supportive and empathetic way may be more effective than detailed technical descriptions alone.
The study also shows the importance of understanding emotional and social factors when designing public health information such as trust, perceptions of expertise, and fairness.
How this learning will be used
We’ll use the findings from this ESRI study to help shape future screening communications. This includes considering when and how to explain uncertainty, and how best to support informed decision-making while maintaining trust in screening programmes.
- The study is published in the British Journal of Health Psychology: Poluektova, O., Robertson, D. A., & Lunn, P. D. (2025). Designing information materials to reduce blame and build trust in health screening: the roles of stereotype content and perceived control. Psychology & Health, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2025.2598041