A B S T R A C T PurposeThe rate of adherence to regular colonoscopy screening in individuals at increased familial risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, especially among rural and other geographically underserved populations. Remote interventions may overcome geographic and system-level barriers. We compared the efficacy of a telehealth-based personalized risk assessment and communication intervention with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy screening among at-risk relatives of patients with CRC. MethodsEligible individuals age 30 to 74 years who were not up-to-date with risk-appropriate screening and were not candidates for genetic testing were recruited after contacting patients with CRC or their next of kin in five states. Enrollees were randomly assigned as family units to either an active, personalized intervention that incorporated evidence-based risk communication and behavior change techniques, or a mailed educational brochure. The primary outcome was medically verified colonoscopy within 9 months of the intervention. ResultsOf the 481 eligible and randomly assigned at-risk relatives, 79.8% completed the outcome assessments within 9 months; 35.4% of those in the personalized intervention group and 15.7% of those in the comparison group obtained a colonoscopy. In an intent-to-treat analysis, the telehealth group was almost three times as likely to get screened as the low-intensity comparison group (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.87 to 4.28; P Ͻ .001). Persons residing in rural areas and those with lower incomes benefitted at the same level as did urban residents. ConclusionRemote personalized interventions that consider family history and incorporate evidence-based risk communication and behavior change strategies may promote risk-appropriate screening in close relatives of patients with CRC.

What motives do people prioritize in their social lives? Historically, social psychologists, especially those adopting an evolutionary perspective, have devoted a great deal of research attention to sexual attraction and romantic-partner choice (mate seeking). Research on long-term familial bonds (mate retention and kin care) has been less thoroughly connected to relevant comparative and evolutionary work on other species, and in the case of kin care, these bonds have been less well researched. Examining varied sources of data from 27 societies around the world, we found that people generally view familial motives as primary in importance and mate-seeking motives as relatively low in importance. Compared with other groups, college students, single people, and men place relatively higher emphasis on mate seeking, but even those samples rated kin-care motives as more important. Furthermore, motives linked to long-term familial bonds are positively associated with psychological well-being, but mate-seeking motives are associated with anxiety and depression. We address theoretical and empirical reasons why there has been extensive research on mate seeking and why people prioritize goals related to long-term familial bonds over mating goals. Reallocating relatively greater research effort toward long-term familial relationships would likely yield many interesting new findings relevant to everyday people’s highest social priorities.

Objective: Relatives of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk for the disease, yet screening rates still remain low. Guided by the Extended Parallel Process Model, we examined the impact of a personalized, remote risk communication intervention on behavioral intention and colonoscopy uptake in relatives of CRC patients, assessing the original additive model and an alternative model in which each theoretical construct contributes uniquely.Methods: We collected intention-to-screen and medical record-verified colonoscopy information on 218 individuals who received the personalized intervention.Results: Structural equation modeling showed poor main model fit (root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.109; standardized root mean residual (SRMR) = 0.134; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.797; Akaike information criterion (AIC) = 11,601; Bayesian information criterion (BIC) = 11,884). However, the alternative model (RMSEA = 0.070; SRMR = 0.105; CFI = 0.918; AIC = 11,186; BIC = 11,498) showed good fit. Cancer susceptibility (B = 0.319, p < 0.001) and colonoscopy self-efficacy (B = 0.364, p < 0.001) perceptions predicted intention to screen, which was significantly associated with colonoscopy uptake (B = 0.539, p < 0.001).Conclusions: Our findings provide support of the utility of Extended Parallel Process Model for designing effective interventions to motivate CRC screening in persons at increased risk when individual elements of the model are considered. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Average lifetime risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC) is approximately 5%; having a first-degree relative (FDR) with CRC increases risk twofold to eightfold [1,2]. Colonoscopy has the potential to reduce both CRC incidence and mortality through early detection and removal of precancerous polyps. The American Cancer Society and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend individuals with an intermediate risk of familial CRC (i.e., CRC diagnosis in an FDR

BACKGROUND We tested the efficacy of a remote tailored intervention (TeleCARE) compared to a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy uptake among at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients and examined subgroup differences based on participant reported cost barriers. METHODS Family members of colorectal cancer patients who were not up-to-date with colonoscopy were randomly assigned as family units to TeleCARE (N=232) or an educational brochure (N=249). At the 9-month follow-up, a cost resource letter listing resources for free or reduced-cost colonoscopy was mailed to participants who had reported cost barriers and remained non-adherent. Rates of medically-verified colonoscopy at the 15-month follow-up were compared based on group assignment and within group stratification by cost barriers. RESULTS In intent-to-treat analysis, 42.7% of participants in TeleCARE and 24.1% of participants in the educational brochure group had a medically-verified colonoscopy [OR = 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 3.52]. Cost was identified as a barrier in both groups (TeleCARE = 62.5%; educational brochure = 57.0%). When cost was not a barrier, the TeleCARE group was almost four times as likely as the comparison to have a colonoscopy (OR = 3.66; 95% CI= 1.85 to 7.24). The intervention was efficacious among those who reported cost barriers; the TeleCARE group was nearly twice as likely to have a colonoscopy (OR = 1.99; 95% CI = 1.12 to 3.52). CONCLUSIONS TeleCARE increased colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers. IMPACT Remote interventions may bolster screening colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers and be more efficacious when cost barriers are absent.

Future interventions to promote colonoscopy in this increased risk population should target the factors we identified as motivators. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01274143).

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01274143.

Background/Aims: This study explored the interest in genomic testing for modest changes in colorectal cancer risk and preferences for receiving genomic risk communications among individuals with intermediate disease risk due to a family history of colorectal cancer. Methods: Surveys were conducted on 272 men and women at intermediate risk for colorectal cancer enrolled in a randomized trial comparing a remote personalized risk communication intervention (TeleCARE) aimed at promoting colonoscopy to a generic print control condition. Guided by Leventhal's Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation, we examined demographic and psychosocial factors possibly associated with interest in SNP testing. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with interest in SNP testing and preferences for receiving genomic risk communications. Results: Three-fourths of participants expressed interest in SNP testing for colorectal cancer risk. Testing interest did not markedly change across behavior modifier scenarios. Participants preferred to receive genomic risk communications from a variety of sources: printed materials (69.5%), oncologists (54.8%), primary-care physicians (58.4%), and the web (58.1%). Overall, persons who were unmarried (p = 0.029), younger (p = 0.003) and with greater cancer-related fear (p = 0.019) were more likely to express interest in predictive genomic testing for colorectal cancer risk. In a stratified analysis, cancer-related fear was associated with the interest in predictive genomic testing in the intervention group (p = 0.017), but not the control group. Conclusions: Individuals with intermediate familial risk for colorectal cancer are highly interested in genomic testing for modest increases in disease risk, specifically unmarried persons, younger age groups and those with greater cancer fear.

Happiness is a valuable experience, and societies want their citizens to be happy. Although this societal commitment seems laudable, overly emphasizing positivity (versus negativity) may create an unattainable emotion norm that ironically compromises individual well-being. In this multi-national study (40 countries; 7443 participants), we investigate how societal pressure to be happy and not sad predicts emotional, cognitive and clinical indicators of well-being around the world, and examine how these relations differ as a function of countries’ national happiness levels (collected from the World Happiness Report). Although detrimental well-being associations manifest for an average country, the strength of these relations varies across countries. People’s felt societal pressure to be happy and not sad is particularly linked to poor well-being in countries with a higher World Happiness Index. Although the cross-sectional nature of our work prohibits causal conclusions, our findings highlight the correlational link between social emotion valuation and individual well-being, and suggest that high national happiness levels may have downsides for some.