Search results

Purpose: To assess whether exposing drinkers to information about the alcohol–cancer link via multiple and diverse sources in an online simulation produces larger improvements in attitudes and intentions relative to exposure to a single source of information. Design: Experimental; unequal randomization with respondents allocated to either the single-source (20%) or multiple-source condition (80%). Alcohol-related behavioral intentions were assessed preexposure and postexposure. Setting: Australia. Participants: A total of 2087 drinkers consuming alcohol at least twice per month. Measures: Scales were used to assess attitudes toward the messages (believability, convincingness, and personal relevance) and behavioral intentions (extent to which participants believed that they should and would reduce their alcohol consumption and their intention to consume 5 or more drinks in a single session). Analysis: Hierarchical linear regression. Results: Source condition was significantly associated with all 3 attitudinal variables ( P < .001). Those exposed to an alcohol warning statement from multiple sources found the message more believable, convincing, and personally relevant compared to those exposed to a warning statement via a single source. They also reported significantly greater change preexposure to postexposure on the 2 behavioral beliefs that they should (Δ M = 0.25 vs Δ M = 0.09) and would (Δ M = 0.23 vs Δ M = 0.00) reduce their current alcohol consumption ( P < .001). Further, those in the multiple-source condition reported reduced intentions to consume 5 or more standard drinks in a single sitting (Δ M = 0.21 vs Δ M = 0.14; P < .001). Conclusion: Findings from the online simulation provide support for the suggestion that integrated approaches involving the combination of multiple sources to deliver a message produce superior outcomes compared to relying on a single source (eg, warning labels on alcoholic beverages).

Cancer will continue to be a leading cause of ill health and death unless we can capitalize on the potential for 30–40% of these cancers to be prevented. In this light, cancer prevention represents an enormous opportunity for public health, potentially saving much of the pain, anguish, and cost associated with treating cancer. However, there is a challenge for governments, and the wider community, in prioritizing cancer prevention activities, especially given increasing financial constraints. This paper describes a method for identifying cancer prevention priorities. This method synthesizes detailed cancer statistics, expert opinion, and the published literature for the priority setting process. The process contains four steps: assessing the impact of cancer types; identifying cancers with the greatest impact; considering opportunities for prevention; and combining information on impact and preventability. The strength of our approach is that it is straightforward, transparent and reproducible for other settings. Applying this method in Western Australia produced a priority list of seven adult cancers which were identified as having not only the biggest impact on the community but also the best opportunities for prevention. Work conducted in an additional project phase went on to present data on these priority cancers to a public consultation and develop an agenda for action in cancer prevention.