Trial reportPatient education and counseling2022
Assessment of skin cancer precision prevention materials among Hispanics in Florida and Puerto Rico.
Trial report in Patient education and counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial to integrate precision skin cancer risk feedback in federally qualified health centers.Contemporary clinical trials · 2026Article
- Interventions for Population Genetic Screening in Ethnic and Racial Minorities: A Scoping Review.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- Qualitative assessment of uptake retention and evaluation of prevention materials for skin cancer among Hispanics.Patient education and counseling · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess Hispanic participants' ratings of intervention materials and examine differences by language preference.
methodsParticipants on a skin cancer prevention trial were randomized to receive generic (n = 457) or precision prevention materials conveying average (n = 195) or higher genetic risk (n = 268) based on MC1R genotype. Three months after receiving either English or Spanish language prevention materials, participants reported amount read, believability and clarity of materials, and intention to change preventive behavior.
resultsParticipants reported high levels on all four outcomes, but the precision prevention groups noted lower clarity than the generic group (p = 3.2 ×10
conclusionsSkin cancer prevention materials were well-received by Hispanic participants. Higher scores among participants preferring Spanish may indicate acquiescence bias, or that translated prevention materials met their linguistic needs. Participants in the precision prevention groups with English language preference may have challenges in the uptake of genetic risk results. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Availability of Spanish materials may have facilitated higher scores. Additional strategies should be explored to optimize participants' believability and clarity of precision prevention materials.
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.