Aurora Occa1, Susan E Morgan2, Wei Peng3, Bingjing Mao2, Soroya Julian McFarlane4, Kim Grinfeder5, Margaret Byrne6. 1. Department of Communication, University of Kentucky, United States. Electronic address: aurora.occa@uky.edu. 2. Department of Communication Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, United States. 3. The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, Washington State University, United States. 4. Department of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, United States. 5. Department of Interactive Media, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, United States. 6. Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffit Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, 33612, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Learning about clinical trials is as stressful and challenging for cancer patients as it is for the clinical staff who provide education to patients. Information aids (IAs) can support both discussions and patients' decision-making, especially when IAs offer interactive features that provide information based on individuals' needs and experiences. However, it is not clear which factors contribute to interactive IAs' effectiveness. METHODS: An experiment with cancer patients and survivors (n = 313) compared the effects of two IAs about clinical trial participation: one with modality (i.e. website/technological) interactivity only and one with both modality and message interactivity (i.e. provides information contingent on individual users' information needs). RESULTS: The IA with both modality and message interactivity features elicited the higher perceived visual informativeness (PVI) and cognitive absorption (CA) scores. The model supports the moderating role of PVI and cancer information overload (CIO), and the mediating role of CA. CONCLUSION: The IA with both modality and message interactivity better supported individuals' decision-making and improved attitudes and knowledge scores. CIO was experienced more by participants using the modality interactivity-only IA. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Message interactivity may simplify individuals' cognitive processes. IAs about clinical trial participation should include both message and modality interactivity.
OBJECTIVE: Learning about clinical trials is as stressful and challenging for cancer patients as it is for the clinical staff who provide education to patients. Information aids (IAs) can support both discussions and patients' decision-making, especially when IAs offer interactive features that provide information based on individuals' needs and experiences. However, it is not clear which factors contribute to interactive IAs' effectiveness. METHODS: An experiment with cancer patients and survivors (n = 313) compared the effects of two IAs about clinical trial participation: one with modality (i.e. website/technological) interactivity only and one with both modality and message interactivity (i.e. provides information contingent on individual users' information needs). RESULTS: The IA with both modality and message interactivity features elicited the higher perceived visual informativeness (PVI) and cognitive absorption (CA) scores. The model supports the moderating role of PVI and cancer information overload (CIO), and the mediating role of CA. CONCLUSION: The IA with both modality and message interactivity better supported individuals' decision-making and improved attitudes and knowledge scores. CIO was experienced more by participants using the modality interactivity-only IA. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Message interactivity may simplify individuals' cognitive processes. IAs about clinical trial participation should include both message and modality interactivity.
Keywords:
Cancer information overload; Clinical trial communication; Cognitive absorption; Information aid; Interactivity perceived visual informativeness
Authors: Elizabeth Flood-Grady; Jordan M Neil; Samantha R Paige; Donghee Lee; Rachel E Damiani; Deaven Hough; Zack Savitsky; Thomas J George; Janice L Krieger Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Wei Peng; Susan E Morgan; Bingjing Mao; Soroya Julian McFarlane; Aurora Occa; Gilles Grinfeder; Margaret M Byrne Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2019-10-30
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
Authors: Margaret M Byrne; Stacey L Tannenbaum; Stefan Glück; Judith Hurley; Michael Antoni Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-07-29 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: S M Miller; S V Hudson; B L Egleston; S Manne; J S Buzaglo; K Devarajan; L Fleisher; J Millard; N Solarino; J Trinastic; N J Meropol Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jakob D Jensen; Nick Carcioppolo; Andy J King; Courtney L Scherr; Christina L Jones; Jeff Niederdieppe Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-10-09
Authors: Bingjing Mao; Susan E Morgan; Wei Peng; Soroya Julian McFarlane; Aurora Occa; Gilles Grinfeder; Margaret M Byrne Journal: Health Commun Date: 2020-04-28