OBJECTIVE: Tailoring to psychological constructs (e.g. self-efficacy, readiness) motivates behavior change, but whether knowledge tailoring alone changes healthcare preferences--a precursor of behavior change in some studies--is unknown. We examined this issue in secondary analyses from a randomized controlled trial of a tailored colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intervention, stratified by ethnicity/language subgroups (Hispanic/Spanish, Hispanic/English, non-Hispanic/English). METHODS: Logistic regressions compared effects of a CRC screening knowledge-tailored intervention versus a non-tailored control on preferences for specific test options (fecal occult blood or colonoscopy), in the entire sample (N=1164) and the three ethnicity/language subgroups. RESULTS: Pre-intervention, preferences for specific tests did not differ significantly between study groups (experimental, 64.5%; control 62.6%). Post-intervention, more experimental participants (78.6%) than control participants (67.7%) preferred specific tests (P<0.001). Adjusting for pre-intervention preferences, more experimental group participants than control group participants preferred specific tests post-intervention [average marginal effect (AME)=9.5%, 95% CI 5.3-13.6; P<0.001]. AMEs were similar across ethnicity/language subgroups. CONCLUSION: Knowledge tailoring increased preferences for specific CRC screening tests across ethnic and language groups. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If the observed preference changes are found to translate into behavior changes, then knowledge tailoring alone may enhance healthy behaviors.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Tailoring to psychological constructs (e.g. self-efficacy, readiness) motivates behavior change, but whether knowledge tailoring alone changes healthcare preferences--a precursor of behavior change in some studies--is unknown. We examined this issue in secondary analyses from a randomized controlled trial of a tailored colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intervention, stratified by ethnicity/language subgroups (Hispanic/Spanish, Hispanic/English, non-Hispanic/English). METHODS: Logistic regressions compared effects of a CRC screening knowledge-tailored intervention versus a non-tailored control on preferences for specific test options (fecal occult blood or colonoscopy), in the entire sample (N=1164) and the three ethnicity/language subgroups. RESULTS: Pre-intervention, preferences for specific tests did not differ significantly between study groups (experimental, 64.5%; control 62.6%). Post-intervention, more experimental participants (78.6%) than control participants (67.7%) preferred specific tests (P<0.001). Adjusting for pre-intervention preferences, more experimental group participants than control group participants preferred specific tests post-intervention [average marginal effect (AME)=9.5%, 95% CI 5.3-13.6; P<0.001]. AMEs were similar across ethnicity/language subgroups. CONCLUSION: Knowledge tailoring increased preferences for specific CRC screening tests across ethnic and language groups. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: If the observed preference changes are found to translate into behavior changes, then knowledge tailoring alone may enhance healthy behaviors.
Authors: Charles E Basch; Randi L Wolf; Corey H Brouse; Celia Shmukler; Alfred Neugut; Lawrence T DeCarlo; Steven Shea Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-10-31 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Richard L Skolasky; Ariel Frank Green; Daniel Scharfstein; Chad Boult; Lisa Reider; Stephen T Wegener Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2010-11-19 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Steven R Simon; Fang Zhang; Stephen B Soumerai; Arthur Ensroth; Lydia Bernstein; Robert H Fletcher; Dennis Ross-Degnan Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-02-08
Authors: Judith M E Walsh; Rene Salazar; Tung T Nguyen; Celia Kaplan; Lam Kieu Nguyen; Jimmy Hwang; Stephen J McPhee; Rena J Pasick Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ali A Siddiqui; Randa Sifri; Terry Hyslop; Jocelyn Andrel; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; James Cocroft; Ronald E Myers Journal: Prev Med Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Sharon L Manne; Elliot J Coups; Arnold Markowitz; Neal J Meropol; Daniel Haller; Paul B Jacobsen; Lina Jandorf; Susan K Peterson; Samuel Lesko; Steven Pilipshen; Gary Winkel Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2009-04
Authors: Anthony Jerant; Richard L Kravitz; Nancy Sohler; Kevin Fiscella; Raquel L Romero; Bennett Parnes; Daniel J Tancredi; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Christina Slee; Simon Dvorak; Charles Turner; Andrew Hudnut; Francisco Prieto; Peter Franks Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Victoria L Champion; Shannon M Christy; William Rakowski; Wambui G Gathirua-Mwangi; Will L Tarver; Lisa Carter-Harris; Andrea A Cohee; Andrew R Marley; Nenette M Jessup; Erika Biederman; Carla D Kettler; Timothy E Stump; Patrick Monahan; David R Lairson; Susan M Rawl Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Susan M Rawl; Shannon M Christy; Susan M Perkins; Yan Tong; Connie Krier; Hsiao-Lan Wang; Amelia M Huang; Esther Laury; Broderick Rhyant; Frank Lloyd; Deanna R Willis; Thomas F Imperiale; Laura J Myers; Jeffrey Springston; Celette Sugg Skinner; Victoria L Champion Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Raymond L Ownby; Amarilis Acevedo; Drenna Waldrop-Valverde; Joshua Caballero; Michael Simonson; Rosemary Davenport; Kofi Kondwani; Robin J Jacobs Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-04-05