Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33969824›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2021

Untangling interactivity's effects: The role of cognitive absorption, perceived visual informativeness, and cancer information overload.

Aurora Occa, Susan E Morgan, Wei Peng, Bingjing Mao, Soroya Julian McFarlane, Kim Grinfeder, Margaret Byrne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Exploring clinical trials awareness, information access and participation amongst Australians with ovarian cancer: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Digital Tools and Strategies for Engaging Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Aurora OccaDepartment of Communication, University of Kentucky, United States. Electronic address: aurora.occa@uky.edu.
Susan E MorganDepartment of Communication Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, United States.
Wei PengThe Edward R. Murrow College of Communication, Washington State University, United States.
Bingjing MaoDepartment of Communication Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, United States.
Soroya Julian McFarlaneDepartment of Communication Studies, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, United States.
Kim GrinfederDepartment of Interactive Media, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, 33146, United States.
Margaret ByrneDepartment of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffit Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, 33612, United States.

Funding

Miami Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000460 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI SACCO, RALPH L. · 2012 to 2016
$16.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000460
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLearning about clinical trials is as stressful and challenging for cancer patients as it is for the clinical staff who provide education to patients. Information aids (IAs) can support both discussions and patients' decision-making, especially when IAs offer interactive features that provide information based on individuals' needs and experiences. However, it is not clear which factors contribute to interactive IAs' effectiveness.

methodsAn experiment with cancer patients and survivors (n = 313) compared the effects of two IAs about clinical trial participation: one with modality (i.e. website/technological) interactivity only and one with both modality and message interactivity (i.e. provides information contingent on individual users' information needs).

resultsThe IA with both modality and message interactivity features elicited the higher perceived visual informativeness (PVI) and cognitive absorption (CA) scores. The model supports the moderating role of PVI and cancer information overload (CIO), and the mediating role of CA.

conclusionThe IA with both modality and message interactivity better supported individuals' decision-making and improved attitudes and knowledge scores. CIO was experienced more by participants using the modality interactivity-only IA. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Message interactivity may simplify individuals' cognitive processes. IAs about clinical trial participation should include both message and modality interactivity.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAttitudeCognitionHumansLearningCancer information overloadClinical trial communicationCognitive absorptionInformation aidInteractivity perceived visual informativeness

Identifiers

PMID33969824
PMCPMC8110950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.