Ken Resnicow1, Yan Zhou2, Sarah Hawley2, Masahito Jimbo2, Mack T Ruffin2, Rachel E Davis3, Deirdre Shires4, Jennifer Elston Lafata5. 1. University of Michigan School of Public Health, Department of Health Behavior & Health Education, Ann Arbor, USA. Electronic address: kresnic@umich.edu. 2. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. 3. University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA. 4. Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, USA. 5. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Test the impact of tailoring CRC screening messages for African Americans (AAs) using novel theoretical variables and to examine moderating effect of communication preferences. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive two minimally tailored or two enhanced tailored print newsletters addressing CRC. The enhanced intervention was tailored on Self-Determination Theory and other novel psychological constructs. Minimal tailoring only used information available in the patient's EHR. The primary outcome was CRC screening based on EHR. Participants were AA members aged 50-74 of an integrated health care delivery system not up to date on CRC screening. RESULTS:We enrolled 881 participants. CRC screening participation rates at 1-year follow up were 20.5% and 21.5% in the minimally and enhanced tailored groups, respectively. Communication preferences moderated the impact of the intervention. Specifically, among those with an autonomous communication preference, screening rates in the minimally and enhanced tailored groups were 17.1% and 25.9%, respectively, while no intervention effect was evident among those with a directive preference. CONCLUSION: Future research is needed to explore the impact of communication preference tailoring for other health behaviors and among other populations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Tailored communications should consider communication style preference to help guide the content and tone of messages.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Test the impact of tailoring CRC screening messages for African Americans (AAs) using novel theoretical variables and to examine moderating effect of communication preferences. METHODS:Participants were randomized to receive two minimally tailored or two enhanced tailored print newsletters addressing CRC. The enhanced intervention was tailored on Self-Determination Theory and other novel psychological constructs. Minimal tailoring only used information available in the patient's EHR. The primary outcome was CRC screening based on EHR. Participants were AA members aged 50-74 of an integrated health care delivery system not up to date on CRC screening. RESULTS: We enrolled 881 participants. CRC screening participation rates at 1-year follow up were 20.5% and 21.5% in the minimally and enhanced tailored groups, respectively. Communication preferences moderated the impact of the intervention. Specifically, among those with an autonomous communication preference, screening rates in the minimally and enhanced tailored groups were 17.1% and 25.9%, respectively, while no intervention effect was evident among those with a directive preference. CONCLUSION: Future research is needed to explore the impact of communication preference tailoring for other health behaviors and among other populations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Tailored communications should consider communication style preference to help guide the content and tone of messages.
Authors: Ken Resnicow; Alice Jackson; Ronald Braithwaite; Colleen DiIorio; Dhana Blisset; Simone Rahotep; Santhi Periasamy Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2002-10
Authors: Ken Resnicow; Rachel E Davis; Guangyu Zhang; Janine Konkel; Victor J Strecher; Abdul R Shaikh; Dennis Tolsma; Josephine Calvi; Gwen Alexander; Julia P Anderson; Cheryl Wiese Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2008-04
Authors: Ken Resnicow; Rachel Davis; Nanhua Zhang; Victor Strecher; Dennis Tolsma; Josephine Calvi; Gwen Alexander; Julia P Anderson; Cheryl Wiese; William E Cross Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Ronald E Myers; Randa Sifri; Terry Hyslop; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W Vernon; James Cocroft; Thomas Wolf; Jocelyn Andrel; Richard Wender Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Susan M Rawl; Celette Sugg Skinner; Susan M Perkins; Jeffrey Springston; Hsiao-Lan Wang; Kathleen M Russell; Yan Tong; Netsanet Gebregziabher; Connie Krier; Esther Smith-Howell; Tawana Brady-Watts; Laura J Myers; Deborah Ballard; Broderick Rhyant; Deanna R Willis; Thomas F Imperiale; Victoria L Champion Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2012-08-27
Authors: Matthew W Kreuter; Celette Sugg Skinner; Karen Steger-May; Cheryl L Holt; Dawn C Bucholtz; Eddie M Clark; Debra Haire-Joshu Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2004 May-Jun
Authors: Mary E Costanza; Roger Luckmann; Anne M Stoddard; Mary Jo White; Jennifer R Stark; Jill S Avrunin; Milagros C Rosal; Lynn Clemow Journal: Cancer Detect Prev Date: 2007-07-23
Authors: Susan M Rawl; Victoria L Champion; Linda L Scott; Honghong Zhou; Patrick Monahan; Yan Ding; Patrick Loehrer; Celette Sugg Skinner Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-03-04
Authors: Alexander Bauer; Jürgen F Riemann; Thomas Seufferlein; Max Reinshagen; Stephan Hollerbach; Ulrike Haug; Susanne Unverzagt; Stephanie Boese; Madeleine Ritter-Herschbach; Patrick Jahn; Thomas Frese; Michael Harris; Margarete Landenberger Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2018-10-26 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Channing E Tate; Daniel D Matlock; Alexandra F Dalton; Lisa M Schilling; Alexandra Marcus; Tiffany Schommer; Corey Lyon; Carmen L Lewis Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-04-25
Authors: Jennifer Elston Lafata; Deirdre A Shires; Yongyun Shin; Susan Flocke; Kenneth Resnicow; Morgan Johnson; Ellen Nixon; Xinxin Sun; Sarah Hawley Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Priscilla Healey; Megan L Stager; Kyler Woodmass; Alan J Dettlaff; Andrew Vergara; Robert Janke; Susan J Wells Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Charles R Rogers; Phung Matthews; Lei Xu; Kenneth Boucher; Colin Riley; Matthew Huntington; Nathan Le Duc; Kola S Okuyemi; Margaret J Foster Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 3.240