Advertisement

Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 51, Issue 5, pp 694–706 | Cite as

Intervention Mediators in a Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Colonoscopy Uptake Among Individuals at Increased Risk of Familial Colorectal Cancer

  • Barbara H. BrumbachEmail author
  • Wendy C. Birmingham
  • Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat
  • Scott Walters
  • Anita Y. Kinney
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Understanding the pathways by which interventions achieve behavioral change is important for optimizing intervention strategies.

Purpose

We examined mediators of behavior change in a tailored-risk communication intervention that increased guideline-based colorectal cancer screening among individuals at increased familial risk.

Methods

Participants at increased familial risk for colorectal cancer (N = 481) were randomized to one of two arms: (1) a remote, tailored-risk communication intervention (Tele-Cancer Risk Assessment and Evaluation (TeleCARE)) or (2) a mailed educational brochure intervention.

Results

Structural equation modeling showed that participants in TeleCARE were more likely to get a colonoscopy. The effect was partially mediated through perceived threat (β = 0.12, p < 0.05), efficacy beliefs (β = 0.12, p < 0.05), emotions (β = 0.22, p < 0.001), and behavioral intentions (β = 0.24, p < 0.001). Model fit was very good: comparative fit index = 0.95, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.05, and standardized root-mean-square residual = 0.08.

Conclusion

Evaluating mediating variables between an intervention (TeleCARE) and a primary outcome (colonoscopy) contributes to our understanding of underlying mechanisms that lead to health behavior change, thus leading to better informed and designed future interventions.

Trial Registration Number

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01274143.

Keywords

Colorectal cancer screening Colonoscopy Extended parallel process model Implementation-intention strategies Structural equation modeling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Marc Schwartz, PhD; Antoinette Stroup, PhD; Lisa Pappas, MStat; Rebecca Simmons, PhD, MPH; and Randall Burt, MD for their contributions to the study design and execution. We also thank the interventionists who are genetic counselors in High Risk Clinical Research at Huntsman Cancer Center: Wendy Kohlmann, MS; Amanda Gammon, MS; Kory Jasperson, MS; Anne Naumer, MS; and Lisa Wadge, MS. We thank A.J. Figueredo, PhD, for consulting on the statistical analyses.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This manuscript included Family Colorectal Cancer Awareness and Risk Education (Family CARE) Project data obtained from the Kinney Research Group and is registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov website (NCT01274143). Family CARE was funded by the National Cancer Institute (1R01CA125194-0305; Kinney, PI) and the Huntsman Cancer Foundation. Family CARE was also supported by the Shared Resources (P30 CA042014) at Huntsman Cancer Institute; the Utah Cancer Registry, which is funded by Contract No. HHSN261201000026C from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER Program with additional support from the Utah State Department of Health and the University of Utah; the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885, the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract N01PC-2010-00034C awarded to the Northern California Cancer Center, contract N01-PC-35139 awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract N01-PC-54404 awarded to the Public Health Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement U58CCU000807-05 awarded to the Public Health Institute; the Colorado Central Cancer Registry program in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment funded by the National Program of Cancer Registries of the Centers for Disease control and Prevention; the Cancer Data Registry of Idaho supported in part by the National Program of Cancer Registries of the Centers for Disease Control and prevention; the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center Support Grant: Development Funds and the Biostatistics Shared Resource (P30CA118100; C.L.W.); the New Mexico Tumor Registry which is funded by National Cancer Institute Contract No. HHSN261201000033C; the Rocky Mountain Cancer Genetics Network (HHSN261200744000C); the Huntsman Cancer Registry; the University of Utah Department of Orthopaedics and the Center for Outcomes Research and Assessment; and the Intermountain Healthcare Oncology Clinical Program and Intermountain Clinical Genetic Institute. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the funding and supporting agencies.

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

Authors Barbara H. Brumbach, Wendy C. Birmingham, Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat, Scott Walters, and Anita Y. Kinney declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of participating institutions and were conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Supplementary material

12160_2017_9893_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 14 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Society AC. Cancer Facts and Figures 2016, 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Butterworth AS, Higgins JP, Pharoah P: Relative and absolute risk of colorectal cancer for individuals with a family history: A meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2006, 42:216–227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johns LE, Houlston RS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of familial colorectal cancer risk. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001, 96:2992–3003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Samadder NJ, Cannon-Albright LA, Burt RW: The impact of family history on the risk of colorectal neoplasia: Don’t change the guidelines just yet! Dig Dis Sci. 2012, 57:3047–3049.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network I: NCCN Practice Guidelines in Oncology, Colorectal Cancer Screening. Jenkintown, PA, 2007.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al.: Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: A joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008, 134:1570–1595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al.: Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale—Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. 2003, 124:544–560.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Courtney RJ, Paul CL, Carey ML, et al.: A population-based cross-sectional study of colorectal cancer screening practices of first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2013, 13:13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rubinstein WS, Acheson LS, O’Neill SM, et al.: Clinical utility of family history for cancer screening and referral in primary care: A report from the Family Healthware Impact Trial. Genet Med. 2011, 13:956–965.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ruthotto F, Papendorf F, Wegener G, et al.: Participation in screening colonoscopy in first-degree relatives from patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007, 18:1518–1522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Honein-AbouHaidar GN, Kastner M, Vuong V, et al. Systematic review and meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies evaluating facilitators and barriers to participation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burt R, Winawer S, Bond J, Levin B, Sandler R. Preventing colorectal cancer: A clinician’s guide: American Gastroenterological Association., 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tyler CV, Jr., Snyder CW: Cancer risk assessment: Examining the family physician’s role. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006, 19:468–477.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones RM, Woolf SH, Cunningham TD, et al.: The relative importance of patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2010, 38:499–507.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson AE, Henry KA, Samadder NJ, Merrill RM, Kinney AY: Rural vs urban residence affects risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013, 11:526–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Denberg TD, Melhado TV, Coombes JM, et al.: Predictors of nonadherence to screening colonoscopy. J Gen Intern Med. 2005, 20:989–995.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Steinwachs D, Allen JD, Barlow WE, et al.: National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: Enhancing use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2010, 152:663–667.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kinney AY, Boonyasiriwat W, Walters ST, et al.: Telehealth personalized cancer risk communication to motivate colonoscopy in relatives of patients with colorectal cancer: The family CARE randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014, 32:654–662.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steffen LE, Boucher KM, Damron BH, et al.: Efficacy of a telehealth intervention on colonoscopy uptake when cost is a barrier: The family CARE cluster randomized controlled trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015, 24:1311–1318.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jensen JD, King AJ, Carcioppolo N, Davis L: Why are tailored messages more effective? A multiple mediation analysis of a breast cancer screening intervention. J Commun. 2012, 62:851–868.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kreuter MW, Wray RJ: Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behav. 2003, 27 Suppl 3:S227–232.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lustria ML, Noar SM, Cortese J, et al.: A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions. J Health Commun. 2013, 18:1039–1069.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS: Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007, 133:673–693.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glasgow RE, Marcus AC, Bull SS, Wilson KM: Disseminating effective cancer screening interventions. Cancer. 2004, 101:1239–1250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pengchit W, Walters ST, Simmons RG, et al.: Motivation-based intervention to promote colonoscopy screening: An integration of a fear management model and motivational interviewing. J Health Psychol. 2011, 16:1187–1197.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Witte K: Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs. 1992, 59:329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Witte K: Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs. 1994, 61:113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Witte K, Meyer G, Martell D: Effective Health Risk Messages: A Step-by-Step Guide, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 2001.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gollwitzer P: Implementation intentions—Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist. 1999, 54:493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kwasnicka D, Presseau J, White M, Sniehotta F: Does planning how to cope with anticipated barriers facilitate health-related behaviour change? A systematic review. Health Psychology Review. 2013, 7:129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schwarzer R, Lippke S, Ziegelmann J: Health action process approach—A research agenda at the Freie Universitat Berlin to examine and promote health behavior change. Zeitschrift Fur Gesundheitspsychologie. 2008, 16:157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sheeran P: Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology. 2002, 12:1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gollwitzer P, Sheeran P: Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2006, 38:69–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schweiger Gallo I, Gollwitzer PM: Implementation intentions: Control of fear despite cognitive load. Psicothema. 2007, 19:280–285.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sheeran P, Orbell S: Using implementation intentions to increase attendance for cervical cancer screening. Health Psychol. 2000, 19:283–289.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sheeran P, Silverman M: Evaluation of three interventions to promote workplace health and safety: Evidence for the utility of implementation intentions. Soc Sci Med. 2003, 56:2153–2163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Connor AM, Jacobsen MJ, Stacey D: An evidence-based approach to managing women’s decisional conflict. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2002, 31:570–581.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Greiner KA, Daley CM, Epp A, et al.: Implementation intentions and colorectal screening: A randomized trial in safety-net clinics. Am J Prev Med. 2014, 47:703–714.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miller MW, Rollnick S: Motivational Interviewing : Helping People Change (3rd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hall K, Gibbie T, Lubman DI: Motivational interviewing techniques—Facilitating behaviour change in the general practice setting. Aust Fam Physician. 2012, 41:660–667.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hall K, Staiger PK, Simpson A, Best D, Lubman DI: After 30 years of dissemination, have we achieved sustained practice change in motivational interviewing? Addiction. 2016, 111:1144–1150.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Miller WR, Rollnick S: The effectiveness and ineffectiveness of complex behavioral interventions: Impact of treatment fidelity. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014, 37:234–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kreuter MW, Chheda SG, Bull FC: How does physician advice influence patient behavior? Evidence for a priming effect. Arch Fam Med. 2000, 9:426–433.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Madlensky L, Esplen MJ, Gallinger S, McLaughlin JR, Goel V: Relatives of colorectal cancer patients: Factors associated with screening behavior. Am J Prev Med. 2003, 25:187–194.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bastani R, Glenn BA, Taylor VM, et al.: Integrating theory into community interventions to reduce liver cancer disparities: The Health Behavior Framework. Prev Med. 2010, 50:63–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rothman AJ: “Is there nothing more practical than a good theory?”: Why innovations and advances in health behavior change will arise if interventions are used to test and refine theory. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2004, 1:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Glanz K, Bishop DB: The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010, 31:399–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tan YY, McGaughran J, Ferguson K, et al.: Improving identification of lynch syndrome patients: A comparison of research data with clinical records. Int J Cancer. 2013, 132:2876–2883.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Boonyasiriwat W, Hung M, Hon SD, et al.: Intention to undergo colonoscopy screening among relatives of colorectal cancer cases: A theory-based model. Ann Behav Med. 2014, 47:280–291.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Family CARE (Colorectal Cancer Awareness and Risk Education) Project (FCARE). Retrieved June 7, 2016, from http://rtips.cancer.gov/rtips/programDetails.do?programId=24393369.
  51. 51.
    Simmons RG, Lee YC, Stroup AM, et al.: Examining the challenges of family recruitment to behavioral intervention trials: Factors associated with participation and enrollment in a multi-state colonoscopy intervention trial. Trials. 2013, 14:116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Birmingham WC, Hung M, Boonyasiriwat W, et al.. Effectiveness of the extended parallel process model in promoting colorectal cancer screening. Psychooncology. 2015.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mack LA, Cook LS, Temple WJ, et al.: Colorectal cancer screening among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients: Benefits and barriers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009, 16:2092–2100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Manne S, Markowitz A, Winawer S, et al.: Understanding intention to undergo colonoscopy among intermediate-risk siblings of colorectal cancer patients: A test of a mediational model. Prev Med. 2003, 36:71–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Gili M, Roca M, Ferrer V, Obrador A, Cabeza E: Psychosocial factors associated with the adherence to a colorectal cancer screening program. Cancer Detect Prev. 2006, 30:354–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Manne S, Markowitz A, Winawer S, et al.: Correlates of colorectal cancer screening compliance and stage of adoption among siblings of individuals with early onset colorectal cancer. Health Psychol. 2002, 21:3–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sifri R, Rosenthal M, Hyslop T, et al.: Factors associated with colorectal cancer screening decision stage. Prev Med. 2010, 51:329–331.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Greiner KA, Engelman KK, Hall MA, Ellerbeck EF: Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care. Prev Med. 2004, 38:269–275.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Klabunde CN, Schenck AP, Davis WW: Barriers to colorectal cancer screening among Medicare consumers. Am J Prev Med. 2006, 30:313–319.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shokar NK, Carlson CA, Shokar GS: Physician and patient influences on the rate of colorectal cancer screening in a primary care clinic. J Cancer Educ. 2006, 21:84–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Cheah W, Zimmerman R: Self-Construal and Fear Appeals: An Empirical Examination of College Students’ Gonorrhea Risk Perceptions. International Communication Association. New York, 2005.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gurmankin Levy A, Shea J, Williams SV, Quistberg A, Armstrong K: Measuring perceptions of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006, 15:1893–1898.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rawl SM, Menon U, Champion VL, et al.: Do benefits and barriers differ by stage of adoption for colorectal cancer screening? Health Educ Res. 2005, 20:137–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Weinrich SP, Weinrich MC, Boyd MD, Johnson E, Frank-Stromborg M: Knowledge of colorectal cancer among older persons. Cancer Nurs. 1992, 15:322–330.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    McCaul K, Goetz P. Worry. Health Behavior Constructs: Theory measurement, and Research. Retrieved June 1, 2016 from http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/.
  66. 66.
    Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W: Impact of Event Scale: A measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979, 41:209–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hay J, Primavera L, Levy A, Shuk E, Ostroff J: Development and validation of a scale assessing novel cancer-related risk perceptions. Ann Behav Med. 2006, 31:S190.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hay J, Shuk E, Cruz G, Ostroff J: Thinking through cancer risk: Characterizing smokers’ process of risk determination. Qual Health Res. 2005, 15:1074–1085.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fritz MS, Mackinnon DP: Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychol Sci. 2007, 18:233–239.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    MacCallum R, Browne M, Sugawara H: Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods. 1996, 1:130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Thoemmes F, Mackinnon DP, Reiser MR: Power analysis for complex mediational designs using Monte Carlo methods. Struct Equ Modeling. 2010, 17:510–534.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wolf EJ, Harrington KM, Clark SL, Miller MW: Sample size requirements for structural equation models: An evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013, 76:913–934.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR: Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008, 6:53–60.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Savalei V, Falk CF: Robust two-stage approach outperforms robust full information maximum likelihood with incomplete nonnormal data. Struct Equ Modeling. 2014, 21:280–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Graham JW: Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009, 60:549–576.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ryan P: Integrated theory of health behavior change: Background and intervention development. Clin Nurse Spec. 2009, 23:161–170; quiz 171-162.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Laiyemo AO, Adebogun AO, Doubeni CA, et al.: Influence of provider discussion and specific recommendation on colorectal cancer screening uptake among U.S. adults. Prev Med. 2014, 67:1–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Blase K, Fixsen D. Core intervention components: Identifying and operationalizing what makes programs work: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2013.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rabin B, Glasgow RE: An implementation science perspective on psychological science and cancer: What is known and opportunities for research, policy, and practice. Am Psychol. 2015, 70:211–220.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Almario CV, May FP, Ponce NA, Spiegel BM: Racial and ethnic disparities in colonoscopic examination of individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015, 13:1487–1495.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Bromley EG, May FP, Federer L, Spiegel BM, van Oijen MG: Explaining persistent under-use of colonoscopic cancer screening in African Americans: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2015, 71:40–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    McCarthy AM, Bristol M, Domchek SM, et al.. Health care segregation, physician recommendation, and racial disparities in BRCA1/2 testing among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Gil A, Wagner E, Vega W: Acculturation, familism, and alcohol use among Latino adolescent males: Longitudinal relations. Journal of Community Psychology. 2000, 28:443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara H. Brumbach
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wendy C. Birmingham
    • 2
  • Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat
    • 3
  • Scott Walters
    • 4
  • Anita Y. Kinney
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Individual, Family, & Community EducationUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of PsychologyChulalongkorn UniversityBangkokThailand
  4. 4.Department of School of Public Health Behavioral and Community HealthUniversity of North Texas Health Science CenterFort WorthUSA
  5. 5.University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention, Department of Internal Medicine, School of MedicineUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations