Trial reportJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2017
User Perceptions and Reactions to an Online Cancer Risk Assessment Tool: a Process Evaluation of Cancer Risk Check.
Trial report in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The cancer epidemic in the Caribbean region: Further opportunities to reverse the disease trend.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2022Review
- Retrospective assessment of barriers and access to genetic services for hereditary cancer syndromes in an integrated health care delivery system.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Risk Ladder, Table, or Bulleted List? Identifying Formats That Effectively Communicate Personalized Risk and Risk Reduction Information for Multiple Diseases.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- A Tale of Two Diverse Qualtrics Samples: Information for Online Survey Researchers.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Online cancer risk assessment tools, which provide personalized cancer information and recommendations based on personal data input by users, are a promising cancer education approach; however, few tools have been evaluated. A randomized controlled study was conducted to compare user impressions of one tool, Cancer Risk Check (CRC), to non-personalized educational information delivered online as series of self-advancing slides (the control). CRC users (N = 1452) rated the tool to be as interesting as the control (p > .05), but users were more likely to report that the information was difficult to understand and not applicable to them (p < .05). Information seeking and sharing also were lower among CRC users; thus, although impressions of CRC were favorable, it was not shown to be superior to existing approaches. We hypothesized CRC was less effective because it contained few visual and graphical elements; therefore, CRC was compared to a text-based control (online PDF file) post hoc. CRC users rated the information to be more interesting, less difficult to understand, and better able to hold their attention (p < .05). Post hoc results suggest the visual presentation of risk is critical to tool success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.