OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effects (affective reactions, cognitive reactions and processing, perceived benefits and barriers and intent to screen) of targeted peripheral+evidential (PE) and peripheral+evidential+socio-cultural (PE+SC) colorectal cancer communications. METHODS: This study was a two-arm randomized control study of cancer communication effects on affective, cognitive processing, and behavioral outcomes over a 22-week intervention. There were 771 African American participants, 45-75 years, participating in the baseline survey related to CRC screening. Three follow-up interviews that assessed intervention effects on affective response to the publications, cognitive processing, and intent to obtain CRC screening were completed. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between PE and PE+SC intervention groups for affect, cognitive processing or intent to screen. However, there were significant interactions effects on outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: The advantages and disadvantages of PE+SC targeted cancer communications and implications of sex differences are considered. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: While there do not appear to be significant differences in behavioral outcomes when using PE and PE+SC strategies, there appear to be subtle differences in affective and cognitive processing outcomes related to medical suspicion and ethnic identity, particularly as it relates to gender.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effects (affective reactions, cognitive reactions and processing, perceived benefits and barriers and intent to screen) of targeted peripheral+evidential (PE) and peripheral+evidential+socio-cultural (PE+SC) colorectal cancer communications. METHODS: This study was a two-arm randomized control study of cancer communication effects on affective, cognitive processing, and behavioral outcomes over a 22-week intervention. There were 771 African American participants, 45-75 years, participating in the baseline survey related to CRC screening. Three follow-up interviews that assessed intervention effects on affective response to the publications, cognitive processing, and intent to obtain CRC screening were completed. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between PE and PE+SC intervention groups for affect, cognitive processing or intent to screen. However, there were significant interactions effects on outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: The advantages and disadvantages of PE+SC targeted cancer communications and implications of sex differences are considered. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: While there do not appear to be significant differences in behavioral outcomes when using PE and PE+SC strategies, there appear to be subtle differences in affective and cognitive processing outcomes related to medical suspicion and ethnic identity, particularly as it relates to gender.
Authors: Matthew W Kreuter; Timothy D McBride; Charlene A Caburnay; Timothy Poor; Vetta L Sanders Thompson; Kassandra I Alcaraz; Katherine S Eddens; Suchitra Rath; Hannah Perkins; Christopher Casey Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.911