4.4 Article

The Effects of Tailoring Knowledge Acquisition on Colorectal Cancer Screening Self-Efficacy

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEALTH COMMUNICATION
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 697-709

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018562

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01CA131386]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interventions tailored to psychological factors such as personal and vicarious behavioral experiences can enhance behavioral self-efficacy but are complex to develop and implement. Information seeking theory suggests tailoring acquisition of health knowledge (without concurrent psychological factor tailoring) could enhance self-efficacy, simplifying the design of tailored behavior change interventions. To begin to examine this issue, the authors conducted exploratory analyses of data from a randomized controlled trial, comparing the effects of an experimental colorectal cancer screening intervention tailoring knowledge acquisition with the effects of a nontailored control on colorectal cancer screening knowledge and self-efficacy in 1159 patients comprising three ethnicity/language strata (Hispanic/Spanish, 23.4%, Hispanic/English, 27.2%, non-Hispanic/English, 49.3%) and 5 recruitment center strata. Adjusted for study strata, the mean postintervention knowledge score was significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. Adjusted experimental intervention exposure (B=0.22, 95% CI [0.14, 0.30]), preintervention knowledge (B=0.11, 95% CI [0.05, 0.16]), and postintervention knowledge (B=0.03, 95% CI [0.01, 0.05]) were independently associated with subsequent colorectal cancer screening self-efficacy (p<.001 all associations). These exploratory findings suggest that tailoring knowledge acquisition may enhance self-efficacy, with potential implications for tailored intervention design, but this implication requires confirmation in studies specifically designed to examine this issue.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available