Meeting Brochure and registration form      SMDM Homepage

Wednesday, October 24, 2007
P4-38

EFFECTS OF TAILORED AND PERSONALIZED COMMUNICATIONS IN A HYPOTHETICAL DECISION AID

Amanda J. Dillard, PhD, Peter A. Ubel, MD, Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, Rosemarie K. Pitsch, MPH, and Angela Fagerlin, PhD. VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System & University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Purpose: To explore the effects of tailoring and personalizing a hypothetical decision aid (DA) on knowledge, affect, interest in shared decision-making and behavioral intentions.

Methods: In this internet study, participants (N = 2717) were presented with a detailed DA that told them to imagine they were at high risk for a hypothetical cancer. They then read about the risks and benefits of a medication that could be used to reduce their risk, and then completed outcome measures. By random assignment, half of participants received a tailored/personalized DA that (a) presented risk information as based on individual-specific characteristics (e.g., age, race, gender) instead of population statistics, and (b) emphasized personalized communication (e.g., by using the words “you” and “your”) instead of a more impersonal tone.

Results: Compared to controls, participants receiving tailored/personalized DAs were more likely to feel the information was personally written for them (composite score; Ms = 8.5 vs. 9.1), t(1, 2650) = 19.35, p < .001. These participants also reported that they would be less anxious if the disease were real (Ms = 2.2 vs. 2.4), t(1, 2695) = 10.07, p < .01, and perceived themselves as less likely to develop the disease should they decide against taking the medication, (Ms = 3.1 vs. 3.5), t(1, 2812) = 21.38, p < .001. In addition, those in the tailored/personalized group were less likely than controls to intend to a) seek additional information about the medication b) talk to a doctor about it, and c) take the medication (composite score; Ms = 2.5 vs. 2.7), t(1, 2667) = 18.53, p < .001, and less likely to report that taking the medication was a good choice (Ms = 2.3 vs. 2.5), t(1, 2685) = 22.08, p < .001. There were no differences between the two groups for knowledge, satisfaction, or interest in shared decision-making.

Conclusions: In this study, people receiving tailored DA materials, with an emphasis on the personalization of the information, felt that the information was more salient and more relevant to them. In addition, tailoring information and using personalized language within a DA influenced people's anxiety about developing a disease, their beliefs about treatment, and their treatment intentions.