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 B.
AU - Vidrine, Jennifer Irvin
AU - Kim, Stephanie
AU - Dailey, Phokeng M.
AU - Jones, Lovell A.
AU - Peterson, Susan K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015, American Association for Cancer Education.
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
C2 - 26546305
AN - SCOPUS:84946763172
SN - 0885-8195
VL - 32
SP - 141
EP - 147
JO - Journal of Cancer Education
JF - Journal of Cancer Education
IS - 1
ER -