Testing the Effects of the Addition of Videos to a Website Promoting Environmental Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Practices: Are Videos Worth It?

Abstract

Searching for ways to reach wider audiences in more comprehensible ways, health promotion agencies might add videos to their current web offerings. While potentially costly and time consuming to create, the effect of these videos on websites has not received much attention. This study translated research about the potential breast cancer risk for young girls associated with the household chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into two websites in which mothers with young daughters were randomly assigned to view (website with videos vs. website without videos). Results revealed that participants in the video condition found the advocated risk protective behaviors easier to perform and stated they were more likely to perform them than those in the non-video condition. Approximately 15 days after exposure, those in the video condition performed on average one more protective behavior than those in the non-video condition. Results also suggest that agencies' efforts should focus on creating one quality video to place on a homepage, as video views declined the deeper people navigated into the site. Behaviors advocated should also be ones that can have lasting impacts with one-time actions, as effects wore away over time. Additional strategies are discussed for health promoters seeking to create videos to add to their current websites.

Keywords:

• Breast Cancer
• Videos
• Environmental Risks
• Websites
• Translation

Acknowledgement

This research was made possible by the Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Centers grant number 1-U01-ES12800 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), NIH, DHHS. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIEHS, NCI, or NIH. The authors thank Robert Koke for his help in designing the website used for this study.

Notes

[1] The time frame of two weeks was chosen because research indicates individuals consume fast food at least once a week (Pereira et al., 2005), and households make trips to the grocery store approximately twice a week (Bawa & Ghosh, 1999). This timeframe would give participants adequate time to make the changes advocated by the website (e.g., look at labels more closely, avoid fast foods in certain packaging, throw away certain items, purchase new PFOA-free items).

[2] The majority of participants completed the Time 2 measures within one week of receiving the email asking them to complete Time 2. The median length of time between the Time 1 exposure and the completion of Time 2 was 15 days.

[3] The data were also analyzed excluding the participants who were in the video condition but indicated they did not watch any videos. All significance test results for Time 1 remained the same with these participants excluded.

[4] The data were also run excluding the participants who were in the video condition but indicated they did not watch any videos. Significance test results were the same for all variables at Time 2 except for self-efficacy which was now barely non-significant p = 0.057. All significant results for the repeated measures ANOVA remained the same.