OBJECTIVE: The study's purpose was to investigate moderator, implementation, and mediator variables related to the efficacy of UV4.me, an Internet intervention that decreased ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure and increased skin protection behaviors among young adults. METHOD:A total of 965 18-25 year olds at risk for skin cancer were recruited nationally online. Participants were randomized to an experimental website (UV4.me), a control website, or assessment only. Participant characteristics (moderators), engagement with and perceptions of interventions (implementation measures), and exposure and protection attitudinal variables (mediators) were assessed. Linear regression and mediation analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Intervention effects on skin protection were greater for participants with a family history of skin cancer (p = .01). Intervention effects on UV exposure were greater among recent indoor tanners (p = .04). Improvements in skin protection (but not UV exposure) were associated with perceiving the interventions as satisfying or helpful (ps < .01). The experimental group had better outcomes if they completed more modules (ps < .01) or set more behavioral goals (ps < .01). Knowledge and exposure decisional balance mediated intervention effects for UV exposure (ps < .05), and protection decisional balance, self-efficacy, and intentions mediated intervention effects for protection (ps < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The experimental intervention was more efficacious for certain high risk groups. The more individuals liked and engaged with the interventions (e.g., by setting goals), the better their outcomes. Mediation results inform theory about change mechanisms and differed by behavioral outcome. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The study's purpose was to investigate moderator, implementation, and mediator variables related to the efficacy of UV4.me, an Internet intervention that decreased ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure and increased skin protection behaviors among young adults. METHOD: A total of 965 18-25 year olds at risk for skin cancer were recruited nationally online. Participants were randomized to an experimental website (UV4.me), a control website, or assessment only. Participant characteristics (moderators), engagement with and perceptions of interventions (implementation measures), and exposure and protection attitudinal variables (mediators) were assessed. Linear regression and mediation analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Intervention effects on skin protection were greater for participants with a family history of skin cancer (p = .01). Intervention effects on UV exposure were greater among recent indoor tanners (p = .04). Improvements in skin protection (but not UV exposure) were associated with perceiving the interventions as satisfying or helpful (ps < .01). The experimental group had better outcomes if they completed more modules (ps < .01) or set more behavioral goals (ps < .01). Knowledge and exposure decisional balance mediated intervention effects for UV exposure (ps < .05), and protection decisional balance, self-efficacy, and intentions mediated intervention effects for protection (ps < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The experimental intervention was more efficacious for certain high risk groups. The more individuals liked and engaged with the interventions (e.g., by setting goals), the better their outcomes. Mediation results inform theory about change mechanisms and differed by behavioral outcome. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Jane R Schubart; Heather L Stuckey; Ambika Ganeshamoorthy; Christopher N Sciamanna Journal: Comput Inform Nurs Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Carolyn J Heckman; Susan D Darlow; Lee M Ritterband; Elizabeth A Handorf; Sharon L Manne Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-01-22 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lisa Beatty; Emma Kemp; Jane Turner; Phyllis Butow; Donna Milne; Patsy Yates; Sylvie Lambert; Addie Wootten; Bogda Koczwara Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Bianca Lisa Faria; Christian M Brieske; Ioana Cosgarea; Albert J Omlor; Fabian N Fries; Christian Olber Moreira de Faria; Henrique Augusto Lino; Ana Carla Cruz Oliveira; Oscar Campos Lisboa; Joachim Klode; Dirk Schadendorf; Breno Bernardes-Souza; Titus J Brinker Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-12-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Gill Hubbard; John Cherrie; Jonathan Gray; Richard G Kyle; Amanda Nioi; Charlotte Wendelboe-Nelson; Hilary Cowie; Stephan Dombrowski Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: June K Robinson; Shiv Patel; Seung Yun Heo; Elizabeth Gray; Jaeman Lim; Kyeongha Kwon; Zach Christiansen; Jeffrey Model; Jacob Trueb; Anthony Banks; Mary Kwasny; John A Rogers Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Mette Brøgger-Mikkelsen; Zarqa Ali; John R Zibert; Anders Daniel Andersen; Simon Francis Thomsen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 5.428