Top

Published in:

01-06-2020

A Pilot Study Determining Comprehension and the Acceptability of a Cancer Research Study Website for Cancer Patients and Caregivers

Authors: Elizabeth Flood-Grady, Jordan M. Neil, Samantha R. Paige, Donghee Lee, Rachel E. Damiani, Deaven Hough, Zack Savitsky, Thomas J. George Jr, Janice L. Krieger

Published in: Journal of Cancer Education | Issue 3/2020

Abstract

The purpose of this pilot study was to determine if a cancer research study website increased comprehension among patients and caregivers and if website evaluations differed across patient and caregiver groups. Participants (N = 200) were cancer patients and caregivers living in the USA. Comprehension was determined by the number of correct responses to a series of questions about key characteristics of cancer research studies that are frequently unknown or misinterpreted by patients and/or caregivers. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to determine participant evaluations across four domains: perceived website credibility, perceived website attractiveness, perceived information effectiveness, and perceived information clarity. Patients and caregivers perceived the website as highly credible and attractive and the information as both easy to understand and moderately effective in helping them make decisions about CCTs. Qualitative feedback underscores the importance of testimonials to website credibility. However, the range in the number of correct responses of certain items across participants coupled with discrepancies in comprehension between patients and caregivers suggests the need for stronger mechanisms evaluating knowledge outcomes.

A total of 136 participants completed the open-ended question on the survey. Responses that reflected one of the valence codes (e.g., “I like [the website]” Caregiver, #190, Positive; “I really have nothing to add” Patient, #90, Neutral), but did not fit within any of the four dependent coding categories were removed from the analyses.

Cancer Statistics. National Cancer Institute website https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics. Updated April 27, 2018. Accessed June 29, 2018

Ford JG, Howerton MW, Lai GY, et al. (2008) Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review. Cancer. 112(2):228–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23157 PubMed

Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5

Hobbs GSLM, Arora NK, Ganz PA, et al. (2015) The role of families in decisions regarding cancer treatments. Cancer. 2015(121):1079–1087PubMed

Krieger JL (2014) Family communication about cancer treatment decision making. A description of the DECIDE typology. Ann Int Commun Assoc 38(1):279–305

Rains SA (2007) Perceptions of traditional information sources and use of the world wide web to seek health information: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey. J Health Commun 12:667–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701619992 PubMed

Tustin N (2010) The role of patient satisfaction in online health information seeking. J Health Commun 15(1):3–17PubMed

Mayer DK, Terrin NC, Kreps GL, et al. (2007) Cancer survivors information seeking behaviors: a comparison of survivors who do and do not seek information about cancer. Patient Edu Cous 65(3):342–350PubMed

Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Morris KJ (1983) Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. J Pers Social Psy 45(4):805–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805

10.

Appelman A, Sundar SS (2016) Measuring message credibility: construction and validation of an exclusive scale. J Mass Commun Q 93(1):59–79

11.

Fishbein M, Hall-Jamieson K, Zimmer E, Von Haeften I, Nabi R (2002) Avoiding the boomerang: testing the relative effectiveness of antidrug public service announcements before a national campaign. Am J Public Health 92(2):238–245PubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Rains SA, Karmikel CD (2009) Health information-seeking and perceptions of website credibility: examining web-use orientation, message characteristics, and structural features of websites. Comput Human Beh 25:544–553

13.

Hu Y, Sundar S (2010) Effects of online health sources on credibility and behavioral intentions. Commun Res 37(1):105–132

14.

van Weert JC, van Noort G, Bol N, van Dijk L, Tates K, Jansen J (2011) Tailored information for cancer patients on the Internet: effects of visual cues and language complexity on information recall and satisfaction. Patient Edu Cous 84(3):368–378

15.

Couper MP, Alexander GL, Zhang N et al (2010) Engagement and retention: measuring breadth and depth of participant use of an online intervention. J Med Internet Res 12(4):e52. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1430 PubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Norman CD, Skinner HA (2006) eHealth literacy: essential skills for consumer health in a networked world. J Med Internet Res 8(2):e9PubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Bull FC, Holt CL, Kreuter MW, Clark EM, Scharff D (2001) Understanding the effects of printed health education materials: which features lead to which outcomes? J Health Commun 6:265–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.5.598 PubMed

18.

Curbow B, Fogarty LA, McDonnell KA, Chill J, Scott LB (2004) Can a brief video intervention improve breast cancer clinical trial knowledge and beliefs? Soc Sci Med 58:193–205PubMed

19.

MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Kay K, Milstein B (1998) Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. CAM J 10(2):31–36

20.

McAdams DP, Reynolds J, Lewis M, Patten AH, Bowman PJ (2001) When bad things turn good and good things turn bad: sequences of redemption and contamination in life narrative and their relation to psychosocial adaptation in midlife adults and in students. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 27(4):474–485

21.

Koenig Kellas J, Baxter LA, LeClair-Underberg C, et al. (2014) Narratively (re) framing stepfamily beginnings: the relationship between adult stepchildren’s stepfamily origin stories and their perceptions of the family. J Fam Commun 14:149–166

22.

Rimel BJ (2016) Clinical trial accrual: obstacles and opportunities. Front Oncol 6:103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2016.00103 PubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Leiter A, Diefenbach MA, Doucette J, Oh WK, Galsky MD (2015) Clinical trial awareness: changes over time and sociodemographic disparities. Clin Trials 12(3):215–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774515571917 PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Nah FF (2004) A study on tolerable waiting time: how long are web users willing to wait. Beh Information Technology 23(3):153–163

25.

Carpenter DM, DeVellis RF, Hogan SL, Fisher EB, DeVellis BM, Jordan JM (2011) Use and perceived credibility of medication information sources for patients with a rare illness: differences by gender. J Health Commun 16(6):629–642PubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Neil JM, Gough A, Kee F, George TJ, Pufahl J, Krieger JL. The influence of patient identification and narrative transportation on intentions to participate in cancer research. J Cancer Edu 2018 1–10

27.

Sillencea E, Briggsa P, Harrisb PR, Fishwicka L (2007) How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information? Soc Sci Med 64:1853–1862

28.

Flood-Grady E, Paige SR, Karimipour N, Harris PA, Cottler LB, Krieger JL (2017) A content analysis of clinical and translational science award (CTSA) strategies for communicating about clinical research participation online. J Clin Transl Sci 1(6):340–351. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018 PubMed

29.

Neter E, Brainin E (2012) eHealth literacy: extending the digital divide to the realm of health information. J Med Internet Res 14(1):e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1619 PubMedPubMedCentral

Title: A Pilot Study Determining Comprehension and the Acceptability of a Cancer Research Study Website for Cancer Patients and Caregivers
Authors: Elizabeth Flood-Grady
Jordan M. Neil
Samantha R. Paige
Donghee Lee
Rachel E. Damiani
Deaven Hough
Zack Savitsky
Thomas J. George Jr
Janice L. Krieger
Publication date: 01-06-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of Cancer Education / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0885-8195
Electronic ISSN: 1543-0154
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-019-01501-w

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Preventing Skin Cancer Among Staff and Guests at Seaside Hotels

Woman to Woman: Implementation of a Cervical Cancer Education Training Program for Grenadian Lay Health Advisors

Quality of Information Available on YouTube Videos Pertaining to Thyroid Cancer

Leveraging an Implementation Science Framework to Adapt and Scale a Patient Navigator Intervention to Improve Mammography Screening Outreach in a New Community

My Kaleidoscope Life: Interconnected Roles as Teacher, Researcher, and Cancer Survivor

Colorectal Cancer Knowledge and Awareness Among University Students in a Caribbean Territory: a Cross-sectional Study

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer