IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v104y2014icp31-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50–75: A randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Jensen, Jakob D.
  • King, Andy J.
  • Carcioppolo, Nick
  • Krakow, Melinda
  • Samadder, N. Jewel
  • Morgan, Susan

Abstract

Research has identified several communication strategies that could increase adherence to colorectal cancer screening recommendations. Two promising strategies are tailoring and narrative-based approaches. Tailoring is the personalization of information based on individual characteristics. Narrative-based approaches use stories about similar others to counter perceived barriers and cultivate self-efficacy. To compare these two approaches, a randomized controlled trial was carried out at 8 worksites in Indiana. Adults 50–75 (N = 209) received one of four messages about colorectal cancer screening: stock, narrative, tailored, tailored narrative. The primary outcome was whether participants filed a colonoscopy claim in the 18 months following the intervention. Individuals receiving narrative messages were 4 times more likely to screen than those not receiving narrative messages. Tailoring did not increase screening behavior overall. However, individuals with higher cancer information overload were 8 times more likely to screen if they received tailored messages. The results suggest that narrative-based approaches are more effective than tailoring at increasing colorectal cancer screening in worksite interventions. Tailoring may be valuable as a strategy for reaching individuals with high overload, perhaps as a follow-up effort to a larger communication campaign.

Suggested Citation

  • Jensen, Jakob D. & King, Andy J. & Carcioppolo, Nick & Krakow, Melinda & Samadder, N. Jewel & Morgan, Susan, 2014. "Comparing tailored and narrative worksite interventions at increasing colonoscopy adherence in adults 50–75: A randomized controlled trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 31-40.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:104:y:2014:i:c:p:31-40
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.12.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613006771
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.12.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winterbottom, Anna & Bekker, Hilary L. & Conner, Mark & Mooney, Andrew, 2008. "Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(12), pages 2079-2088, December.
    2. Dillard, Amanda J. & Fagerlin, Angela & Cin, Sonya Dal & Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J. & Ubel, Peter A., 2010. "Narratives that address affective forecasting errors reduce perceived barriers to colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 45-52, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Victoria A. Shaffer & Suzanne Brodney & Teresa Gavaruzzi & Yaara Zisman-Ilani & Sarah Munro & Sian K. Smith & Elizabeth Thomas & Katherine D. Valentine & Hilary L. Bekker, 2021. "Do Personal Stories Make Patient Decision Aids More Effective? An Update from the International Patient Decision Aids Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 897-906, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Victoria A. Shaffer & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2013. "All Stories Are Not Alike," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 4-13, January.
    2. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    3. Milner, Mattie & Rice, Stephen & Rice, Connor, 2019. "Support for environmentally-friendly airports influenced by political affiliation and social identity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    4. Laura D. Scherer & Jeffrey T. Kullgren & Tanner Caverly & Aaron M. Scherer & Victoria A. Shaffer & Angela Fagerlin & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2018. "Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Preferences Predict Responses to Information about Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(6), pages 708-718, August.
    5. Bertoli, Paola & Grembi, Veronica & Morelli, Massimo & Rosso, Anna Cecilia, 2023. "In medio stat virtus? Effective communication and preferences for redistribution in hard times," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 214(C), pages 105-147.
    6. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.
    7. Cornelia Betsch & Corina Ulshöfer & Frank Renkewitz & Tilmann Betsch, 2011. "The Influence of Narrative v. Statistical Information on Perceiving Vaccination Risks," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(5), pages 742-753, September.
    8. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Annika Wallin & Andrew M. Parker & JoNell Strough & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "Effects of Anti- Versus Pro-Vaccine Narratives on Responses by Recipients Varying in Numeracy: A Cross-sectional Survey-Based Experiment," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(8), pages 860-870, November.
    9. Aaron H. Anglin & Shane W. Reid & Jeremy C. Short, 2023. "More Than One Way to Tell a Story: A Configurational Approach to Storytelling in Crowdfunding," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(2), pages 461-494, March.
    10. Seth Kaplan & Carolyn Winslow & Lydia Craig & Xue Lei & Carol Wong & Jill Bradley-Geist & Martin Biskup & Gregory Ruark, 2020. "“Worse than I anticipated” or “This isn’t so bad”?: The impact of affective forecasting accuracy on self-reported task performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-21, July.
    11. J. S. Blumenthal-Barby & Heather Krieger, 2015. "Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(4), pages 539-557, May.
    12. Ian G. J. Dawson, 2018. "Assessing the Effects of Information About Global Population Growth on Risk Perceptions and Support for Mitigation and Prevention Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2222-2241, October.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:1:p:86-96 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. van Laer, Tom & de Ruyter, Ko, 2010. "In stories we trust: How narrative apologies provide cover for competitive vulnerability after integrity-violating blog posts," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 164-174.
    15. Gerrit Antonides & Michelle Welvaarts, 2020. "Effects of Default Option and Lateral Presentation on Consumer Choice of the Sustainable Option in an Online Choice Task," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Ramona Ludolph & Peter J. Schulz, 2018. "Debiasing Health-Related Judgments and Decision Making: A Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 3-13, January.
    17. K. D. Valentine & Pete Wegier & Victoria A. Shaffer & Laura D. Scherer, 2022. "The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 387-397, April.
    18. de Barra, Mícheál, 2017. "Reporting bias inflates the reputation of medical treatments: A comparison of outcomes in clinical trials and online product reviews," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 248-255.
    19. Inge M Brokerhof & Jan Fekke Ybema & P Matthijs Bal, 2020. "Illness narratives and chronic patients’ sustainable employability: The impact of positive work stories," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Susanne Hoffmann & Francis G. Caro & Alison S. Gottlieb & Iris Kesternich & Joachim K. Winter, 2014. "Contributions of Second Opinions, Outcome Forecasts, and Testimonials to Patient Decisions about Knee Replacement Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 603-614, July.
    21. Haoyang Yan & Patricia J. Deldin & Stephanie K. Kukora & Cynthia Arslanian-Engoren & Kenneth Pituch & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, 2021. "Using Narratives to Correct Forecasting Errors in Pediatric Tracheostomy Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(3), pages 305-316, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:104:y:2014:i:c:p:31-40. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.