The Impact of a Primetime Cancer Storyline: From Individual Knowledge and Behavioral Intentions to Policy-level Changes

US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 6130 Executive Blvd Suite, 3131, Bethesda, MD 20892-7354, USA.
Journal of Cancer Education (Impact Factor: 1.23). 03/2010; 25(4):484-9. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-010-0093-y
Source: PubMed


We assessed the educational impact of a primetime network TV storyline that addressed cancer patient navigators. An online survey was administered after the episode aired. Exposed respondents saw the episode (n = 336); unexposed respondents did not (n = 211). Exposed respondents were more likely to report they would recommend a patient navigator (61% vs. 48%, p = 0.01). Clips of the episode were shown to raise awareness of patient navigators in a Congressional Committee meeting before the Patient Navigator Act was signed into law (2005). Entertainment education can have a positive impact on cancer knowledge and can contribute to policy-level decisions.

6 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decision aids are evidence-based tools designed to inform people of the potential benefit and harm of treatment options, clarify their preferences and provide a shared decision-making structure for discussion at a clinic visit. For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are considering methotrexate, we have developed a web-based patient decision aid called the ANSWER (Animated, Self-serve, Web-based Research Tool). This study aimed to: 1) assess the usability of the ANSWER prototype; 2) identify strengths and limitations of the ANSWER from the patient's perspective. The ANSWER prototype consisted of: 1) six animated patient stories and narrated information on the evidence of methotrexate for RA; 2) interactive questionnaires to clarify patients' treatment preferences. Eligible participants for the usability test were patients with RA who had been prescribed methotrexate. They were asked to verbalize their thoughts (i.e., think aloud) while using the ANSWER, and to complete the System Usability Scale (SUS) to assess overall usability (range = 0-100; higher = more user friendly). Participants were audiotaped and observed, and field notes were taken. The testing continued until no new modifiable issues were found. We used descriptive statistics to summarize participant characteristics and the SUS scores. Content analysis was used to identified usability issues and navigation problems. 15 patients participated in the usability testing. The majority were aged 50 or over and were university/college graduates (n = 8, 53.4%). On average they took 56 minutes (SD = 34.8) to complete the tool. The mean SUS score was 81.2 (SD = 13.5). Content analysis of audiotapes and field notes revealed four categories of modifiable usability issues: 1) information delivery (i.e., clarity of the information and presentation style); 2) navigation control (i.e., difficulties in recognizing and using the navigation control buttons); 3) layout (i.e., position of the videos, text, diagrams and navigation buttons); 4) aesthetic (i.e., the colour, look and feel of the online tool). Although the SUS score indicated high usability before and after major modification, findings from the think-aloud sessions illustrated areas that required further refinement. Our results highlight the importance of formative evaluation in usability testing.
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 12/2013; 13(1):131. DOI:10.1186/1472-6947-13-131 · 1.83 Impact Factor