e-Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2020

Modality preferences for healthy living after cancer interventions: a theoretical investigation (#340)

Morgan Leske 1 , Bogda Koczwara 1 , Julia Morris 2 , Lisa Beatty 1
  1. Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
  2. Cancer Council SA, Adelaide, SA, Australia

Aims: End-user modality preferences are important feasibility consideration for developing accessible healthy living interventions. Previous research suggests age, gender, socio-economic status, education, and BMI correlate with preference for telephone/online delivery. The aim of this study was to investigate if cancer survivors prefer telephone or online delivery for a healthy living intervention and build on previous research by applying social cognitive constructs to explore why these factors are associated with delivery preference.

Methods: Australian cancer survivors were invited to complete an online or hardcopy cross-sectional survey measuring social demographic factors and validated measures of self-efficacy (Generalised Self-efficacy Scale), health literacy (Health Literacy Questionnaire) and social support (MOS Social Support Survey).

Results: Of the 168 respondents, the majority were female (n =147), breast cancer survivors (n=122), and preferred online delivery (n=109, 65%). Participants who preferred online delivery had a longer time since diagnosis (M=9.85, SD=8.20) compared to those who preferred telephone delivery (M=6.80, SD=5.54). Logistic regression analyses demonstrated that neither age (B=0.004, p=.87), gender (B=-0.36, p=.69), socio-economic status (low vs middle B=0.91, p=.10; low vs high B=0.97, p=.07), BMI (B=-0.07, p=.14), nor education (secondary vs TAFE B=0.44, p=.50; secondary vs tertiary B=-0.03, p=.96) had a direct effect on delivery preference. Furthermore, self-efficacy (B=.06, p=.34), health literacy (actively managing health B=-0.83, p=.10; finding health information B=0.33, p=.55; understanding health information B=-0.57, p=.34), nor social support (B=0.08, p=.77), had a direct effect on delivery preference.

Conclusions: Social demographic factors may not influence delivery preference, and online delivery should be considered. However, these results cannot be generalised past female breast cancer survivors. Time since diagnosis may influence preference as needs change throughout survivorship. Those with a shorter time since diagnosis may prefer the personal support offered with telephone delivery. Over time cancer survivors may have less engagement with acute services and online delivery is preferred.