OBJECTIVE: Compare effects of narrative and informational videos on use of mammography, cancer-related beliefs, recall of core content and a range of reactions to the videos. METHOD:African American women (n=489) ages 40 and older were recruited from low-income neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO and randomly assigned to watch anarrative video comprised of stories from African American breast cancer survivors (Living Proof) or a content-equivalent informational video using a more expository and didactic approach (Facts for Life). Effects were measured immediately post-exposure and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The narrative video was better liked, enhanced recall, reduced counterarguing, increased breast cancer discussions with family members and was perceived as more novel. Women who watched the narrative video also reported fewer barriers to mammography, more confidence that mammograms work, and were more likely to perceive cancer as an important problem affecting African Americans. Use of mammography at 6-month follow-up did not differ for the narrative vs. informational groups overall (49% vs. 40%, p=.20), but did among women with less than a high school education (65% vs. 32%, p<.01), and trended in the same direction for those who had no close friends or family with breast cancer (49% vs. 31%, p=.06) and those who were less trusting of traditional cancer information sources (48% vs. 30%, p=.06). CONCLUSIONS: Narrative forms of communication may increase the effectiveness of interventions to reduce cancer health disparities. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Narratives appear to have particular value in certain population sub-groups; identifying these groups and matching them to specific communication approaches may increase effectiveness.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Compare effects of narrative and informational videos on use of mammography, cancer-related beliefs, recall of core content and a range of reactions to the videos. METHOD: African American women (n=489) ages 40 and older were recruited from low-income neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO and randomly assigned to watch a narrative video comprised of stories from African American breast cancer survivors (Living Proof) or a content-equivalent informational video using a more expository and didactic approach (Facts for Life). Effects were measured immediately post-exposure and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: The narrative video was better liked, enhanced recall, reduced counterarguing, increased breast cancer discussions with family members and was perceived as more novel. Women who watched the narrative video also reported fewer barriers to mammography, more confidence that mammograms work, and were more likely to perceive cancer as an important problem affecting African Americans. Use of mammography at 6-month follow-up did not differ for the narrative vs. informational groups overall (49% vs. 40%, p=.20), but did among women with less than a high school education (65% vs. 32%, p<.01), and trended in the same direction for those who had no close friends or family with breast cancer (49% vs. 31%, p=.06) and those who were less trusting of traditional cancer information sources (48% vs. 30%, p=.06). CONCLUSIONS: Narrative forms of communication may increase the effectiveness of interventions to reduce cancer health disparities. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Narratives appear to have particular value in certain population sub-groups; identifying these groups and matching them to specific communication approaches may increase effectiveness.
Authors: William Rakowski; Nancy Breen; Helen Meissner; Barbara K Rimer; Sally W Vernon; Melissa A Clark; Andrew N Freedman Journal: Prev Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Matthew W Kreuter; Melanie C Green; Joseph N Cappella; Michael D Slater; Meg E Wise; Doug Storey; Eddie M Clark; Daniel J O'Keefe; Deborah O Erwin; Kathleen Holmes; Leslie J Hinyard; Thomas Houston; Sabra Woolley Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2007-06
Authors: Matthew W Kreuter; Trent D Buskirk; Kathleen Holmes; Eddie M Clark; Lou Robinson; Xuemei Si; Suchita Rath; Deborah Erwin; Anne Philipneri; Elisia Cohen; Katherine Mathews Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2008-02-07 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Ross C Brownson; Elizabeth A Dodson; Katherine A Stamatakis; Christopher M Casey; Michael B Elliott; Douglas A Luke; Christopher G Wintrode; Matthew W Kreuter Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kuang-Yi Wen; Suzanne M Miller; Annette L Stanton; Linda Fleisher; Marion E Morra; Alexandra Jorge; Michael A Diefenbach; Mary E Ropka; Alfred C Marcus Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2012-07-07
Authors: W Brady DeHart; Brent A Kaplan; Derek A Pope; Alexandra M Mellis; Warren K Bickel Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Sheila T Murphy; Lauren B Frank; Joyee S Chatterjee; Meghan B Moran; Nan Zhao; Paula Amezola de Herrera; Lourdes A Baezconde-Garbanati Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Christi A Patten; Harry A Lando; Chris A Desnoyers; Yvette Barrows; Joseph Klejka; Paul A Decker; Christine A Hughes; Martha J Bock; Rahnia Boyer; Kenneth Resnicow; Linda Burhansstipanov Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Stephanie A Kraft; Melissa Constantine; David Magnus; Kathryn M Porter; Sandra Soo-Jin Lee; Michael Green; Nancy E Kass; Benjamin S Wilfond; Mildred K Cho Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 2.486