Activation Versus Change as a Principle Underlying Intervention Strategies to Promote Health Behaviors.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Interventions are effective in promoting health behavior change to the extent that (a) intervention strategies modify targets (i.e., mechanisms of action), and (b) modifying targets leads to changes in behavior. To complement taxonomies that characterize the variety of strategies used in behavioral interventions, we outline a new principle that specifies how strategies modify targets and thereby promote behavior change. We distinguish two dimensions of targets-value (positive vs. negative) and accessibility (activation level)-and show that intervention strategies operate either by altering the value of what people think, feel, or want (target change) or by heightening the accessibility of behavior-related thoughts, feelings, and goals (target activation). METHODS AND RESULTS: We review strategies designed to promote target activation and find that nudges, cue-reminders, goal priming, the question-behavior effect, and if-then planning are each effective in generating health behavior change, and that their effectiveness accrues from heightened accessibility of relevant targets. We also identify several other strategies that may operate, at least in part, via target activation (e.g., self-monitoring, message framing, anticipated regret inductions, and habits). CONCLUSIONS: The Activation Vs. Change Principle (AVCP) offers a theoretically grounded and parsimonious means of distinguishing among intervention strategies. By focusing on how strategies modify targets, the AVCP can aid interventionists in deciding which intervention strategies to deploy and how to combine different strategies in behavioral trials. We outline a research agenda that could serve to further enhance the design and delivery of interventions to promote target activation.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of behavioral interventions in nonclinical settings for improving health outcomes.

This paper examines three distinct examples of interventions in nonclinical settings selected to highlight the challenges and opportunities for evaluating cost-effectiveness in the field of health psychology and behavioral medicine. Nonclinical settings are defined as those involving systems outside of traditional medical/clinical settings, and include interventions tested in clinical settings that can also be implemented in nonclinical settings. The examples in this paper reflect the use of a varying degree of existing cost-effectiveness data and previous health economic analyses. First, the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program model reflects an intervention protocol designed to increase patients' confidence and mastery in their ability to manage their conditions that has been shown to be cost effective for a variety of chronic disease conditions. Second, the cost and cost-effectiveness of tobacco quitlines (e.g., National Tobacco Quit Line) has been the subject of several preliminary cost-effectiveness examinations and has proven to have significant reach and impact on tobacco-related behaviors. Finally, environmental interventions for promoting walking and physical activity in community-based contexts (e.g., PATH trial) are presented and have been shown to be highly relevant for demonstrating cost-effectiveness. Overall, the disciplines of health psychology and behavioral medicine are in a unique position to develop, implement, and evaluate a broader range of interventions in more diverse environments than cost-effectiveness applications in more traditional, clinical settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Behavioral and social scientists' reflections on genomics: a systematic evaluation within the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

Clinical and public health translation of genomics could be facilitated by expertise from behavioral medicine, yet genomics has not been a significant focus of the Society of Behavioral Medicine (SBM). SBM convened a working group (WG) to lead a systematic exploration of members' views on: (a) whether SBM should give a higher priority to genomic translation and (b) what efforts, if any, should be made to support this increased engagement. The WG used a stepped process over 2 years that began by gaining input from SBM leadership regarding key issues and suggestions for approach, engaging a cross section of membership to expand and record these discussions, followed by systematic qualitative analyses to inform priority action steps. Discussions with SBM leaders and members suggested that genomics was relevant to SBM, particularly for junior members. SBM members' expertise in social and behavioral theory, and implementation study designs, were viewed as highly relevant to genomic translation. Participants expressed that behavioral and social scientists should be engaged in translational genomics work, giving special attention to health disparities. Proposed action steps are aligned with a "push-pull" framework of innovation dissemination. "Push" strategies aim to reach potential adopters and included linking members with genomics expertise to those wanting to become involved and raising awareness of evidence-based genomic applications ready for implementation. "Pull" strategies aim to expand demand and included developing partnerships with genomics societies and advocating for funding, study section modifications, and training programs.

Knowledge, motivations, expectations, and traits of an African, African-American, and Afro-Caribbean sequencing cohort and comparisons to the original ClinSeq® cohort.

PURPOSE: Racial minority populations are underrepresented in genomics research. This study enrolled African-descended individuals in a sequencing study and reported their characteristics. METHODS: We purposively recruited 467 individuals self-identified as African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean to the ClinSeq® study and surveyed them about knowledge, motivations, expectations, and traits. Summary statistics were calculated and compared with data from the study's original cohort, which was primarily White and self-referred. RESULTS: Recruitment took five years and 83% of enrollees completed the survey. Participants had modest knowledge about benefits and limitations of sequencing (x̅s = 5.1, ranges: 0-10), and less than the original cohort (x̅ = 7.5 and 7.7, respectively). Common motivations to enroll were learning information relevant to personal health (49%) or family members' health (33%), and most had realistic expectations of sequencing. Like the original cohort, they had high levels of optimism, openness, and resilience. CONCLUSION: Early adopters may have relatively consistent personality traits irrespective of majority/minority status and recruitment methods, but high levels of genomics knowledge are not universal. Research should determine whether recruitment and consent procedures provide adequate education to promote informed choices and realistic expectations, which are vital to ethical research and increasing genomics research participation in underrepresented communities.

Effects of Emotion on Medical Decisions Involving Tradeoffs.

Risk perceptions for a disease can motivate use of medications that reduce disease risk. However, these medications are often accompanied by elevated risks for other adverse health effects, and perceived risk of these side effects may also influence decisions. Emotions experienced at the time of a decision influence risk judgments and decision making, and they may be important to examine in these tradeoff contexts. This study examined the effect of experimentally induced fear and anger on risk perceptions and willingness to use a hypothetical medical treatment that attenuates risk of one condition but increases the risk for another. Participants ( N = 1948) completed an induction of fear, anger, or neutral emotion and then read about a hypothetical medication that reduced risk for one health condition but increased risk for another, and they indicated their willingness to use it. Deliberative, experiential, and affective risk perceptions about both health conditions were measured, conditional on taking and not taking the medication. Fear condition participants were more willing to take the medication than those in the neutral condition (ß = 0.14; P = 0.009; 95% confidence interval, 0.036-0.25). Fear also increased deliberative, experiential, and affective risk when conditioned on not using the medication, Ps < 0.05. In contrast, anger did not influence willingness to use the medication ( P = 0.22) and increased deliberative and affective risk of side effects when conditioned on using the medication ( P < 0.05). As one of the first studies to examine how emotion influences tradeoff decision making, these findings extend our understanding of how fear and anger influence such decisions.

On Being More Amenable to Threatening Risk Messages Concerning Close Others (vis-à-vis the Self).

People often respond defensively to risk messages impugning their own behavior. We explored whether people are more amenable to risk messages impugning a close other's behavior. In two experiments, participants learned how being overweight could influence their own cancer risk or that of an opposite-sex close other. As predicted, participants expressed higher affective risk perceptions (i.e., worry) and experiential risk perceptions for their close others than for themselves. Participants in the close other condition also reported greater interest in diagnostic testing and additional information (Experiment 1) and greater interest in consulting a provider and more plans for remediation (Experiment 2). These effects were mediated by a combination of worry and experiential risk perceptions. The self/other difference emerged even though participants endorsed the messages as believable and relevant; participants were simply more willing to extrapolate from the message to their close other's risk than to their own risk.

Awareness of the Link between Alcohol Consumption and Cancer across the World: A Review.

Since 1988, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen, the highest level of risk. Growing evidence suggests that alcohol increases the risk of several types of cancer including breast, bowel, prostate, and liver, and accounts for a significant proportion of preventable cancers. Despite ample evidence of this relationship, public awareness is less clear. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed 32 studies examining lay awareness of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer in 16 countries. Our results show that awareness appears to be low and varies internationally; it is relatively higher in the United Kingdom, Morocco, and Australia. Methodologic differences in assessment obfuscate cross-country and cross-sample comparisons. In general, people are more likely to endorse alcohol as a risk factor when presented with a list of possible risk factors than when asked to list risk factors in an open-ended format. Attempts to increase awareness have been limited and constitute a significant public health need. We provide potential strategies to increase awareness, such as alcohol bottle labeling and fostering patient/physician discussions regarding the link. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(4); 429-37. ©2018 AACR.

Developing a scale to assess health regulatory focus.

RATIONALE: Regulatory focus (i.e., focus on motivation to achieve gains or avoid losses and non-gains) is used to tailor health behavior change interventions, improving efficacy, but is currently assessed by scales that are not health-specific and may capture a version of the construct that is not ideally matched to the rationale for tailoring. OBJECTIVE: We developed and validated a Health Regulatory Focus Scale (HRFS), which assesses tendencies to avoid negative health consequences (prevention focus) or achieve positive health outcomes (promotion focus). METHODS: Across four studies (and a scale development study in supplementary online materials), we established convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity for the HRFS. In studies examining predictive validity, main outcome measures were health behavior intentions, including intentions to reduce alcohol use, quit smoking, eat a healthy diet, exercise, be screened for cancer, and engage in general cancer preventive behaviors. RESULTS: The promotion and prevention sub-scales performed well in confirmatory factor analyses. Single-factor models had significantly poorer fit than models delineating promotion and prevention. The sub-scales were differentially (and only modestly) correlated with related constructs (anxiety, optimism, information avoidance, ambiguity/fatalism). Higher HRFS-Promotion focus generally corresponded with greater health behavior intentions. Conversely, higher HRFS-Prevention focus corresponded with lower health behavior intentions. Associations were largely maintained even when controlling for established regulatory focus measures, supporting the assertion that the HRFS would predict unique variance in health behavior intentions. CONCLUSION: The HRFS has the potential to improve the precision with which framed health messages change behavior, as it may assess a version of regulatory focus that is more ideally matched to rationale for tailoring interventions.

Using an Internet-Based Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool to Improve Social-Cognitive Precursors of Physical Activity.

BACKGROUND: Internet-based cancer risk assessment tools might serve as a strategy for translating epidemiological risk prediction research into public health practice. Understanding how such tools affect key social-cognitive precursors of behavior change is crucial for leveraging their potential into effective interventions. PURPOSE: To test the effects of a publicly available, Internet-based, breast cancer risk assessment tool on social-cognitive precursors of physical activity. METHODS: Women (N = 132) aged 40-78 with no personal cancer history indicated their perceived risk of breast cancer and were randomly assigned to receive personalized ( www.yourdiseaserisk.wustl.edu ) or nonpersonalized breast cancer risk information. Immediately thereafter, breast cancer risk perceptions and physical activity-related behavioral intentions, self-efficacy, and response efficacy were assessed. RESULTS: Personalized information elicited higher intentions, self-efficacy, and response efficacy than nonpersonalized information, P values < 0.05. Self-efficacy and response efficacy mediated the effect of personalizing information on intentions. Women who received personalized information corrected their inaccurate risk perceptions to some extent, P values < 0.05, but few fully accepted the information. CONCLUSION: Internet-based risk assessment tools can produce beneficial effects on important social-cognitive precursors of behavior change, but lingering skepticism, possibly due to defensive processing, needs to be addressed before the effects can be maximized.

Behavioral research in cancer prevention and control: a look to the future.

Human behavior is central to the etiology and management of cancer outcomes and presents several avenues for targeted and sustained intervention. Psychosocial experiences such as stress and health behaviors including tobacco use, sun exposure, poor diet, and a sedentary lifestyle increase the risk of some cancers yet are often quite resistant to change. Cancer screening and other health services are misunderstood and over-utilized, and vaccination underutilized, in part because of the avalanche of information about cancer prevention. Coordination of cancer care is suboptimal, and only a small fraction of cancer patients enroll in clinical trials essential to the development of new cancer treatments. A growing population of cancer survivors has necessitated a fresh view of cancer as a chronic rather than acute disease. Fortunately, behavioral research can address a wide variety of key processes and outcomes across the cancer control continuum from prevention to end-of-life care. Here we consider effects at the biobehavioral and psychological, social and organizational, and environmental levels. We challenge the research community to address key behavioral targets across all levels of influence, while taking into account the many new methodological tools that can facilitate this important work.

Advancing innovations in social/personality psychology and health: opportunities and challenges.

Social, personality, and health psychologists have a long tradition of active and productive collaborations that have advanced the development of intervention strategies that promote health and well-being and the specification of the theoretical principles that underlie those strategies. This special issue is designed to continue this tradition of collaboration and to highlight areas of research and investigative strategies that offer opportunities for innovation. This concluding paper examines how investigators construe the interface between theory and practice and, with that lens, considers several themes that have emerged across the papers that comprise this special issue. As evidenced by the papers in this special issue, investigators are well-positioned to leverage advances in understanding of human health and well-being. However, to capitalize on this opportunity, investigators need to commit to cultivating a culture of scientific activity that prioritizes the engagement of theory and practice-the pursuit of both understanding and use.

The state of research on racial/ethnic discrimination in the receipt of health care.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a review to examine current literature on the effects of interpersonal and institutional racism and discrimination occurring within health care settings on the health care received by racial/ethnic minority patients. METHODS: We searched the PsychNet, PubMed, and Scopus databases for articles on US populations published between January 1, 2008 and November 1, 2011. We used various combinations of the following search terms: discrimination, perceived discrimination, race, ethnicity, racism, institutional racism, stereotype, prejudice or bias, and health or health care. Fifty-eight articles were reviewed. RESULTS: Patient perception of discriminatory treatment and implicit provider biases were the most frequently examined topics in health care settings. Few studies examined the overall prevalence of racial/ethnic discrimination and none examined temporal trends. In general, measures used were insufficient for examining the impact of interpersonal discrimination or institutional racism within health care settings on racial/ethnic disparities in health care. CONCLUSIONS: Better instrumentation, innovative methodology, and strategies are needed for identifying and tracking racial/ethnic discrimination in health care settings.

Population sciences, translational research, and the opportunities and challenges for genomics to reduce the burden of cancer in the 21st century.

Advances in genomics and related fields are promising tools for risk assessment, early detection, and targeted therapies across the entire cancer care continuum. In this commentary, we submit that this promise cannot be fulfilled without an enhanced translational genomics research agenda firmly rooted in the population sciences. Population sciences include multiple disciplines that are needed throughout the translational research continuum. For example, epidemiologic studies are needed not only to accelerate genomic discoveries and new biological insights into cancer etiology and pathogenesis, but to characterize and critically evaluate these discoveries in well-defined populations for their potential for cancer prediction, prevention and response to treatment. Behavioral, social, and communication sciences are needed to explore genomic-modulated responses to old and new behavioral interventions, adherence to therapies, decision making across the continuum, and effective use in health care. Implementation science, health services, outcomes research, comparative effectiveness research, and regulatory science are needed for moving validated genomic applications into practice and for measuring their effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and unintended consequences. Knowledge synthesis, evidence reviews, and economic modeling of the effects of promising genomic applications will facilitate policy decisions and evidence-based recommendations. Several independent and multidisciplinary panels have recently made specific recommendations for enhanced research and policy infrastructure to inform clinical and population research for moving genomic innovations into the cancer care continuum. An enhanced translational genomics and population sciences agenda is urgently needed to fulfill the promise of genomics in reducing the burden of cancer.