User Perceptions and Reactions to an Online Cancer Risk Assessment Tool

a Process Evaluation of Cancer Risk Check

Shelly R. Hovick, Therese Bartholomew Bevers, Jennifer Irvin Vidrine, Stephanie Kim, Phokeng M. Dailey, Lovell A. Jones, Susan K Peterson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Online cancer risk assessment tools, which provide personalized cancer information and recommendations based on personal data input by users, are a promising cancer education approach; however, few tools have been evaluated. A randomized controlled study was conducted to compare user impressions of one tool, Cancer Risk Check (CRC), to non-personalized educational information delivered online as series of self-advancing slides (the control). CRC users (N = 1452) rated the tool to be as interesting as the control (p >.05), but users were more likely to report that the information was difficult to understand and not applicable to them (p <.05). Information seeking and sharing also were lower among CRC users; thus, although impressions of CRC were favorable, it was not shown to be superior to existing approaches. We hypothesized CRC was less effective because it contained few visual and graphical elements; therefore, CRC was compared to a text-based control (online PDF file) post hoc. CRC users rated the information to be more interesting, less difficult to understand, and better able to hold their attention (p <.05). Post hoc results suggest the visual presentation of risk is critical to tool success.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)141-147
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Cancer Education
Volume32
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Neoplasms
Information Dissemination
Education

Keywords

  • Health communication
  • Risk assessment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

User Perceptions and Reactions to an Online Cancer Risk Assessment Tool : a Process Evaluation of Cancer Risk Check. / Hovick, Shelly R.; Bevers, Therese Bartholomew; Vidrine, Jennifer Irvin; Kim, Stephanie; Dailey, Phokeng M.; Jones, Lovell A.; Peterson, Susan K.

In: Journal of Cancer Education, Vol. 32, No. 1, 01.03.2017, p. 141-147.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hovick, Shelly R. ; Bevers, Therese Bartholomew ; Vidrine, Jennifer Irvin ; Kim, Stephanie ; Dailey, Phokeng M. ; Jones, Lovell A. ; Peterson, Susan K. / User Perceptions and Reactions to an Online Cancer Risk Assessment Tool : a Process Evaluation of Cancer Risk Check. In: Journal of Cancer Education. 2017 ; Vol. 32, No. 1. pp. 141-147.
@article{e66194f9786e4db290f6b3672e668d20,
title = "User Perceptions and Reactions to an Online Cancer Risk Assessment Tool: a Process Evaluation of Cancer Risk Check",
abstract = "Online cancer risk assessment tools, which provide personalized cancer information and recommendations based on personal data input by users, are a promising cancer education approach; however, few tools have been evaluated. A randomized controlled study was conducted to compare user impressions of one tool, Cancer Risk Check (CRC), to non-personalized educational information delivered online as series of self-advancing slides (the control). CRC users (N = 1452) rated the tool to be as interesting as the control (p >.05), but users were more likely to report that the information was difficult to understand and not applicable to them (p <.05). Information seeking and sharing also were lower among CRC users; thus, although impressions of CRC were favorable, it was not shown to be superior to existing approaches. We hypothesized CRC was less effective because it contained few visual and graphical elements; therefore, CRC was compared to a text-based control (online PDF file) post hoc. CRC users rated the information to be more interesting, less difficult to understand, and better able to hold their attention (p <.05). Post hoc results suggest the visual presentation of risk is critical to tool success.",
keywords = "Health communication, Risk assessment",
author = "Hovick, {Shelly R.} and Bevers, {Therese Bartholomew} and Vidrine, {Jennifer Irvin} and Stephanie Kim and Dailey, {Phokeng M.} and Jones, {Lovell A.} and Peterson, {Susan K}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s13187-015-0939-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "32",
pages = "141--147",
journal = "Journal of Cancer Education",
issn = "0885-8195",
publisher = "Springer Publishing Company",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - User Perceptions and Reactions to an Online Cancer Risk Assessment Tool

T2 - a Process Evaluation of Cancer Risk Check

AU - Hovick, Shelly R.

AU - Bevers, Therese Bartholomew

AU - Vidrine, Jennifer Irvin

AU - Kim, Stephanie

AU - Dailey, Phokeng M.

AU - Jones, Lovell A.

AU - Peterson, Susan K

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Online cancer risk assessment tools, which provide personalized cancer information and recommendations based on personal data input by users, are a promising cancer education approach; however, few tools have been evaluated. A randomized controlled study was conducted to compare user impressions of one tool, Cancer Risk Check (CRC), to non-personalized educational information delivered online as series of self-advancing slides (the control). CRC users (N = 1452) rated the tool to be as interesting as the control (p >.05), but users were more likely to report that the information was difficult to understand and not applicable to them (p <.05). Information seeking and sharing also were lower among CRC users; thus, although impressions of CRC were favorable, it was not shown to be superior to existing approaches. We hypothesized CRC was less effective because it contained few visual and graphical elements; therefore, CRC was compared to a text-based control (online PDF file) post hoc. CRC users rated the information to be more interesting, less difficult to understand, and better able to hold their attention (p <.05). Post hoc results suggest the visual presentation of risk is critical to tool success.

AB - Online cancer risk assessment tools, which provide personalized cancer information and recommendations based on personal data input by users, are a promising cancer education approach; however, few tools have been evaluated. A randomized controlled study was conducted to compare user impressions of one tool, Cancer Risk Check (CRC), to non-personalized educational information delivered online as series of self-advancing slides (the control). CRC users (N = 1452) rated the tool to be as interesting as the control (p >.05), but users were more likely to report that the information was difficult to understand and not applicable to them (p <.05). Information seeking and sharing also were lower among CRC users; thus, although impressions of CRC were favorable, it was not shown to be superior to existing approaches. We hypothesized CRC was less effective because it contained few visual and graphical elements; therefore, CRC was compared to a text-based control (online PDF file) post hoc. CRC users rated the information to be more interesting, less difficult to understand, and better able to hold their attention (p <.05). Post hoc results suggest the visual presentation of risk is critical to tool success.

KW - Health communication

KW - Risk assessment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946763172&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946763172&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s13187-015-0939-4

DO - 10.1007/s13187-015-0939-4

M3 - Article

VL - 32

SP - 141

EP - 147

JO - Journal of Cancer Education

JF - Journal of Cancer Education

SN - 0885-8195

IS - 1

ER -