Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Personalizing Colorectal Cancer Risk Communication on Risk Perceptions and Health Behavior Intentions: a Randomized Trial of Average-Risk Adults

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk assessment tools may help individuals gauge cancer risk and motivate lifestyle and screening behavior changes. Despite the evermore common availability of such tools, little is known about their potential utility in average-risk population approaches to cancer prevention. We evaluated the effects of providing personalized (vs. generic) information concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) risk factors on average-risk individuals’ risk perceptions and intentions to engage in three risk-reducing behaviors: CRC screening, diet, and physical activity. Further, we explored whether the receipt of CRC-specific risk assessment feedback influenced individuals’ breast cancer risk perceptions and mammography intentions. Using an online survey, N = 419 survey respondents aged 50–75 with no personal or family history of CRC were randomized to receive an average estimate of CRC lifetime risk and risk factor information that was either personalized (treatment) or invariant/non-personalized (control). Respondent risk perceptions and behavioral intentions were ascertained before and after risk assessment administration. No differences were observed in risk perceptions or behavioral intentions by study arm. However, regardless of study arm, CRC screening intentions significantly increased after risk assessment feedback was provided. This occurred despite a significant reduction in risk perceptions. Results support the role simple cancer risk assessment information could play in promoting screening behaviors while improving the accuracy of cancer risk perceptions. Providing cancer risk assessment information may decrease individuals’ perceptions of cancer risk to more realistic levels while simultaneously facilitating screening intentions among an average-risk population, regardless of whether provided risk information is personalized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Qualtrics outsourced recruitment to partner companies with established panels.

References

  1. Wang C, Sen A, Ruffin MT, Nease DE, Gramling R, Acheson LS, O’Neill SM, Rubinstein WS, Family Healthware Impact Trial (FHITr) Group (2012) Family history assessment: impact on disease risk perceptions. Am J Prev Med 43(4):392–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lynch HT, de la Chapelle A (2003) Hereditary colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 348(10):919–932

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Colditz GA, Stein C (2004) Handbook of cancer risk assessment and prevention. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury

    Google Scholar 

  4. American Cancer Society. 2018. Key statistics for colorectal cancer, from https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html. Accessed 24 Jan 2018

  5. American Cancer Society (2017) Cancer prevention & early detection facts & figures 2017–2018. American Cancer Society, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  6. Holmberg C, Parascandola M (2010) Individualised risk estimation and the nature of prevention. Health Risk Soc 12(5):441–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Emmons KM, Wong M, Puleo E, Weinstein N, Fletcher R, Colditz G (2004) Tailored computer-based cancer risk communication: correcting colorectal cancer risk perception. J Health Commun 9(2):127–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weinstein ND, Atwood K, Puleo E, Fletcher R, Colditz G, Emmons K (2004) Colon cancer: risk perceptions and risk communication. J Health Commun 9(1):53–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Edwards A, Evans R, Hood K, Elwyn GJ (2006) Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:4

  10. Glanz K, Volpicelli K, Jepson C, Ming ME, Schuchter LM, Armstrong K (2014) Effects of tailored risk communications for skin cancer prevention and detection: the PennSCAPE randomized trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24(2):415–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rubinstein WS, O'Neill SM, Rothrock N, Starzyk EJ, Beaumont JL, Acheson LS, Wang C, Gramling R, Galliher JM, Ruffin MT (2011) Components of family history associated with women’s disease perceptions for cancer: a report from the family Healthware™ impact trial. Genet Med 13(1):52–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Amakawa, Kazuki 2017 The application of discrete mathematics in algorithm

  13. Jones RM, Mongin SJ, Lazovich DA, Church TR, Yeazel MW (2008) Validity of four self-reported colorectal cancer screening modalities in a general population: differences over time and by intervention assignment. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17(4):777–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kushi LH, Doyle C, McCullough M, Rock CL, Demark-Wahnefried W, Bandera EV, Gapstur S, Patel AV, Andrews K, Gansler T (2012) American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention. CA Cancer J Clin 62(1):30–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. United States Department of Agriculture, C. g. 2017. All about the vegetable group, from https://www.choosemyplate.gov/vegetables. Accessed 7 Mar 2018

  16. American Cancer Society. 2014. Lifetime risk of developing or dying from cancer, from http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer. Accessed 13 Mar 2018

  17. Freedman AN, Slattery ML, Ballard-Barbash R, Willis G, Cann BJ, Pee D, Gail MH, Pfeiffer R (2008) Colorectal cancer risk prediction tool for white men and women without known susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 27(5):686–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Colditz G, Atwood KA, Karen E, Monson RR, Willett WC, Trichopoulos D, Hunter DJ (2000) Harvard report on cancer prevention volume 4: Harvard cancer risk index. Cancer Causes Control 11(6):477–488

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1980 The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice: DTIC document

  20. Brug J, Robert AC, Ruiter RA, Van Assema P (2003) The (ir) relevance of framing nutrition education messages. Nutr Health 17(1):9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA (2012) Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med 43(1):101–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ferrer RA, Klein WM, Zajac LE, Land SR, Ling BS (2012) An affective booster moderates the effect of gain-and loss-framed messages on behavioral intentions for colorectal cancer screening. J Behav Med 35(4):452–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. National Cancer Institute. 2012. Breast cancer risk in American Women, from https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/risk-fact-sheet. Accessed 15 Sept 2016

  24. Vernon SW, Meissner H, Klabunde C, Rimer BK, Ahnen DJ, Bastani R, Mandelson MT, Nadel MR, Sheinfeld-Gorin S, Zapka J (2004) Measures for ascertaining use of colorectal cancer screening in behavioral, health services, and epidemiologic research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 13(6):898–905

    Google Scholar 

  25. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS (2007) Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull 133(4):673–693

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Financial support for this study was provided in part by a predoctoral training award from the Susan G. Komen Foundation (GTDR14302086) and a National Cancer Institute T32 award (2T32CA093423).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Behavior and Policy, School of Medicine, and Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    Carrie A. Miller

  2. Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy and UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Jennifer Elston Lafata

  3. Department of Health Behavior and Policy, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    Maria D. Thomson

Authors
  1. Carrie A. Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer Elston Lafata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria D. Thomson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carrie A. Miller.

Ethics declarations

This study was approved by an Institutional Review Board following expedited review.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, C.A., Lafata, J.E. & Thomson, M.D. The Effects of Personalizing Colorectal Cancer Risk Communication on Risk Perceptions and Health Behavior Intentions: a Randomized Trial of Average-Risk Adults. J Canc Educ 36, 719–727 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01694-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01694-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation