Effects of a Web-based intervention on women’s breast health behaviors

Abstract

Helping women make choices to reduce cancer risk and to improve breast health behaviors is important, but the best ways to reach more people with intervention assistance is not known. To test the efficacy of a Web-based intervention designed to help women make better breast health choices, we adapted our previously tested, successful breast health intervention package to be delivered on the Internet, and then we tested it in a randomized trial. We recruited women from the general public to be randomized to either an active intervention group or a delayed intervention control group. The intervention consisted of a specialized Web site providing tailored and personalized risk information to all participants, followed by offers of additional support if needed. Follow-up at 1-year post-randomization revealed significant improvements in mammography screening in intervention women compared with control women (improvement of 13 percentage points). The intervention effects were more powerful in women who increased breast health knowledge and decreased cancer worry during intervention. These data indicate that increases in mammography can be accomplished in population-based mostly insured samples by implementing this simple, low resource intensive intervention.

Internet Use and Cancer-Preventive Behaviors in Older Adults: Findings from a Longitudinal Cohort Study

“…In the cancer field, use of online information by cancer survivors is well documented (22)(23)(24)(25)(26), and the Internet is being used as a resource for cancer-related information in the general population (27). These findings are complemented by evidence that online behavior change materials can achieve comparable effects to print-based or telephone modalities (28,29).…”

Screening for diabetes in dental settings

“…Of these five studies, two studies Bowen et al 2011) reported an increase in screening uptake, and three studies Bowen et al 2011;Helmes et al 2006) reported better psychological outcomes such as cancer worry and quality of life.…”

“…Though, the amount of detail that each study provided their participants with did all vary, therefore studies and their intervention material varied in the complexity. A total of thirteen studies (Allen et al, 2010;Bodurtha et al, 2009;Bowen & Powers, 2010;Bowen et al, 2011;Glenn et al, 2011;Harari et al, 2008;Helmes, Culver, & Bowen, 2006;Lipkus & Klein, 2006;Rawl et al, 2012;Schroy et al, 2011;Schroy et al, 2012;Steckelberg, Hulfenhaus, Haastert, & Muhlhauser, 2011;Yuksel, Majumdar, Biggs, & Tsuyuki, 2010;Yuksel, Tsuyuki, & Majumdar, 2012) provided participants with some form of educational material regarding a particular disease or condition or screening test. In two studies (Allen et al, 2010;Schroy et al, 2011;Schroy et al, 2012) the main focus was to aid decision making and a decision aid tool was used, where educational information was provided alongside a decision aid tool to assist in the decision making process about attending for screening.…”

“…Six studies discussed theoretical constructs alongside the individualised risk information, such as barriers to, and benefits of screening and self-efficacy information (Bloom, Stewart, Chang, & You, 2006;Bodurtha et al, 2009;Glanz et al, 2007;Glenn et al, 2011;Manne et al, 2009;Vernon et al, 2008).. Two studies also provided personalised screening recommendations bases on a persons' level of risk (Glanz et al, 2007;Rawl et al, 2012). Two studies provided follow-up/ check-in calls to their participants (Bowen & Powers, 2010;Glanz et al, 2007), whilst six of the total eighteen studies tailored the additional material to the individual, such as incorrect knowledge about disease or screening test (Bowen et al, 2011;Glenn et al, 2011;Lipkus & Klein, 2006;Manne et al, 2009;Rawl et al, 2012;Vernon et al, 2008). In terms of the actual presentation of the individualised risk information, five studies reported presenting a relative risk (Allen et al, 2010;Bowen & Powers, 2010;Helmes et al, 2006;Lipkus & Klein, 2006;Steckelberg et al, 2011), one study (Steckelberg et al, 2011) presented the risk in natural frequencies, and three studies reported presenting lifetime risk (Bloom et al, 2006;Bodurtha et al, 2009;Bowen & Powers, 2010).…”

“…Two studies described reporting the individualised risk numerically (Bowen et al, 2011;Helmes et al, 2006), whilst five studies reported presenting the information graphically (Allen et al, 2010;Bowen & Powers, 2010;Bowen et al, 2011;Helmes et al, 2006;Vernon et al, 2008). Finally, one study (two articles) reported using colour-coded categories to present the risk information (Rubinstein et al, 2011;Ruffin et al, 2011).…”