Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 408–411 | Cite as

Time Availability and Preference for e-Health Communication Channels for Nutrition and Physical Activity

  • Lisa M. Quintiliani
  • Jessica A. Whiteley
  • Elizabeth J. Johnson
  • K. Viswanath


The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between time availability and preference for computer-based (e-health) communication channels when receiving nutrition and physical activity information, two key behaviors related to cancer prevention. Students from a large, diverse, urban university (n = 397) completed a web-based survey indicating their usage patterns and preferences for multiple eHealth channels. Bivariate analyses were performed based on a measure of time availability, comprised of working status (25 h/week or more, 1–24 h/week, or not working) and enrollment status (full-time or part-time). Most e-health channels were broadly used by students and did not differ according to time availability. Those with the most amount of time available preferred receiving nutrition and physical activity information via social networking more frequently compared to those with the least amount of time available (60 versus 43 %, P ≤ 0.05). Our study suggests that time availability may be another important factor to consider when planning cancer prevention programs


e-health Time availability Non-traditional college students Nutrition Physical activity 



This work was conducted with the support of grants from the National Cancer Institute (Pre-Pilot Grant from the UMass Boston/Dana-Farber–Harvard Cancer Center U56 Partnership 5 U56 CA118641; grant 5 R03 CA139943; and Training Grant 5 R25 CA057711). The funding sources did not have a role in the study design, data interpretation, or manuscript publishing.


  1. 1.
    Pratt M, Sarmiento OL, Montes F, Ogilvie D, Marcus BH, Perez LG, Brownson RC, for the Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group (2012) The implications of megatrends in information and communication technology and transportation for changes in global physical activity. Lancet 380(9838):282–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark NM, Janz NK, Dodge JA, Mosca L, Lin X, Long Q, Little RJ, Wheeler JR, Keteyian S, Liang J (2008) The effect of patient choice of intervention on health outcomes. Contemp Clin Trials 29(5):679–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lewis BA, Napolitano MA, Whiteley JA, Marcus BH (2006) The effect of preferences for print versus telephone interventions on compliance and attrition in a randomized controlled physical activity trial. Psychol Sport Exerc 7(5):453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blake K, Flynt-Wallington S, Viswanath K (2010) Health communication channel preferences by class, race, and place. In: Finney Rutten L, Hesse B, Moser R, Kreps G (eds) Building the evidence base in cancer communication. Hampton Press, New York, pp 149–174Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franks H, Hardiker NR, McGrath M, McQuarrie C (2012) Public health interventions and behaviour change: reviewing the grey literature. Public Health 126(1):12–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kline G (1977) Time in communication research. In: Morris Hirsch P, Kline G (eds) Strategies for communication research. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, pp 187–204Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hardiker NR, Grant MJ (2011) Factors that influence public engagement with eHealth: a literature review. Int J Med Inform 80(1):1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Office of Institutional Research (2003) Student characteristics and measurements of student satisfaction. University of Massachusetts Boston. Accessed 12 February 2013
  9. 9.
    American College Health Association (2007) American College Health Association National College Health Assessment Spring 2006 Reference Group Data Report (Abridged). J Am Coll Health 55(4):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Institute on Aging (2008) Health and retirement study. Accessed 12 February 2013
  11. 11.
    National Cancer Institute (2003) Health information national trends survey. Accessed 12 February 2013

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa M. Quintiliani
    • 1
  • Jessica A. Whiteley
    • 2
  • Elizabeth J. Johnson
    • 3
  • K. Viswanath
    • 4
  1. 1.Boston UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.University of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA
  3. 3.Commonwealth Psychology AssociatesBostonUSA
  4. 4.Dana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations