Abstract
Online cancer risk assessment tools, which provide personalized cancer information and recommendations based on personal data input by users, are a promising cancer education approach; however, few tools have been evaluated. A randomized controlled study was conducted to compare user impressions of one tool, Cancer Risk Check (CRC), to non-personalized educational information delivered online as series of self-advancing slides (the control). CRC users (N = 1452) rated the tool to be as interesting as the control (p > .05), but users were more likely to report that the information was difficult to understand and not applicable to them (p < .05). Information seeking and sharing also were lower among CRC users; thus, although impressions of CRC were favorable, it was not shown to be superior to existing approaches. We hypothesized CRC was less effective because it contained few visual and graphical elements; therefore, CRC was compared to a text-based control (online PDF file) post hoc. CRC users rated the information to be more interesting, less difficult to understand, and better able to hold their attention (p < .05). Post hoc results suggest the visual presentation of risk is critical to tool success.