Preconsultation education promoting breast cancer screening: Does the choice of media make a difference?

Journal of Cancer Education

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 152-161

  Street, Richard L ^a   Van Order, Alisa ^b   Bramson, Rachel ^b   Manning, Tim ^b  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST EXAMINATION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SCREENING; CONSULTATION; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; HEALTH PROMOTION; MAMMOGRAPHY; OUTPATIENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ANXIETY; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; AUDIOVISUAL AIDS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; BREAST SELF-EXAMINATION; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; ETHNIC GROUPS; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; LEARNING; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIMEDIA; PATIENT EDUCATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SOCIAL CLASS;

EID: 0344043406     PISSN: 08858195     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. CA - Cancer J Clin. 1992.
2. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al. Selections, follow-up, and analysis in the Health Insurance Plan Study. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst. 1985;67:65-74.
3. Rimer BK, Trock BT, Engstrom PF, et al. Why do some women get regular mammograms? Am J Prev Med. 1991;7:69-74.
4. Parrott RL. Motivation to attend to health messages: presentation of content and linguistic considerations. In: Maibach E, Parrott RL (eds). Designing Health Messages. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1995, pp 7-23.
5. Street RL Jr, Rimal RN. Health promotion and interactive technology: a conceptual foundation. In: Street RL Jr, Gold WR, Manning T (eds). Health Promotion and Interactive Technology: Theoretical Applications and Future Directions. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997, pp 1-18.
6. National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Screening Consortium. Screening mammography: a missed clinical opportunity? Results of the NCI Breast Cancer Screening Consortium and National Health Interview Survey studies. JAMA. 1990;264:54-8.
7. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. The Transtheoretical Approach: Crossing Traditional Boundaries of Therapy. Homewood, Illinois: Dow Jones/Irwin, 1986.
8. Vernon SW, Laville EA, Jackson GL. Participation in breast cancer screening programs. Soc Sci Med. 1990;30:1107-18.
9. Lerman C, Rimer B, Trock B, et al. Factors associated with repeat adherence to breast cancer screening. Prev Med. 1990;19:279-90.
10. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.
11. Stiff JB. Cognitive processing of persuasive message cues. Communication Monographs. 1986;53:75-89.
12. Street RL Jr, Manning T. Information environments for breast cancer education. In: Street RL Jr, Gold WR, Manning T (eds). Health Promotion and Interactive Technology: Theoretical Applications and Future Directions. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997, pp 121-40.
13. Bargh JA. Automatic information processing: implications for communication and affect. In: Donohew L, Sypher H, Higgins ET (eds). Communication, Social Cognition, and Affect. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum, 1988, pp 9-32.
14. Webber GC. Patient education: a review of issues. Med Care. 1990;28:1089-103.
15. Steuer J. Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Communication. 1992;42:73-93.
16. Dede C, Fontana L. Transforming health education via new media. In: Harris L (ed). Health and the New Media: Technologies Transforming Personal and Public Health. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995, pp 163-84.
17. Kahn G. Computer-based patient education. MD Comput. 1993;10:93-9.
18. Schaffer LC, Hannafin MJ. The effects of progressive interactivity on learning from interactive video. Educational Communication and Technology Journal. 1986;34:89-96.
19. Jelovsek FR, Adebonojo L. Learning principles applied to computer-assisted instruction. MD Comput. 1993;10:165-72.
20. Bamgboye EA, Jarallah SJ. Long waiting outpatients: target audience for health education. Patient Educ Counseling. 1994;23:49-54.
21. Nattinger AB, Panzer RJ, Janus J. Improving the utilization of screening mammography in primary care practices. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149:2087-92.
22. Fox SA, Stein JA. The effect of physician-patient communication on mammography utilization by different ethnic groups. Med Care, 1991;29:1065-83.
23. Kerschner PA, Hart KC. The aged user and technology. In: Dunkle RE, Haug MR, Rosenberg M (eds). Communications Technology and the Elderly: Issues and Forecasts. New York: Springer, 1984, pp 135-44.
24. Rogers EM, Collins-Jarvis L, Schmilz J. The PEN Project in Santa Monica: interactive communication, equality, and political action. J Am Info Sci. 1994;45:401-10.
25. Pingree S, Hawkins RP, Gustafson DH, et al. Will the disadvantaged ride the information highway? Hopeful answers from a computer-based health crises system. J Broadcasting and Electronic Media. 1996;40:331-53.
26. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, Mulley AG Jr, et al. Patient reactions to a program designed to facilitate participation in treatment decisions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Med Care. 1995;33:771-82.
27. Gram IT, Slenker SE. Cancer anxiety and attitudes toward mammography among screening attenders, nonattenders, and women never invited. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:249-51.
28. Gustafson D, Wise M, McTavish F, et al. Development and pilot evaluation of a computer-based support system for women with breast cancer. J Psychosoc Oncol. 1993;11:69-93.
29. Gustafson D, Wennberg J, Gorry T. Reflections on health promotion and interactive technology. In: Street RL Jr, Gold WR, Manning T (eds). Health Promotion and Interactive Technology: Theoretical Applications and Future Directions. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997, pp 221-36.
30. Collins RL, Taylor SE. The vividness effect: real or illusory? J Exp Soc Psychol. 1988;24:1-18.