Assessment of skin cancer precision prevention materials among Hispanics in Florida and Puerto Rico.

OBJECTIVE: To assess Hispanic participants' ratings of intervention materials and examine differences by language preference. METHODS: Participants on a skin cancer prevention trial were randomized to receive generic (n = 457) or precision prevention materials conveying average (n = 195) or higher genetic risk (n = 268) based on MC1R genotype. Three months after receiving either English or Spanish language prevention materials, participants reported amount read, believability and clarity of materials, and intention to change preventive behavior. RESULTS: Participants reported high levels on all four outcomes, but the precision prevention groups noted lower clarity than the generic group (p = 3.2 ×10-6). Participants preferring Spanish provided consistently higher scores than those preferring English. Among English-preferring participants, those in the precision prevention groups scored lower on all measures than those in the generic group. CONCLUSIONS: Skin cancer prevention materials were well-received by Hispanic participants. Higher scores among participants preferring Spanish may indicate acquiescence bias, or that translated prevention materials met their linguistic needs. Participants in the precision prevention groups with English language preference may have challenges in the uptake of genetic risk results. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Availability of Spanish materials may have facilitated higher scores. Additional strategies should be explored to optimize participants' believability and clarity of precision prevention materials.

A randomized clinical trial of precision prevention materials incorporating MC1R genetic risk to improve skin cancer prevention activities among Hispanics.

Purpose: Skin cancer incidence is increasing among Hispanics, who experience worse outcomes than non-Hispanic Whites. Precision prevention incorporating genetic testing for MC1R, a skin cancer susceptibility marker, may improve prevention behavior. Patients and Methods: Hispanic participants (n=920) from Tampa, FL and Ponce, PR, were block-randomized within MC1R higher- and average-risk groups to precision prevention or generic prevention arms. We collected baseline information on demographics, family history of cancer, phenotypic characteristics, health literacy, health numeracy, and psychosocial measures. Participants reported weekday and weekend sun exposure (in hours), number of sunburns, frequency of five sun protection behaviors, intentional outdoor and indoor tanning, and skin examinations at baseline, three months, and nine months. Participants also reported these outcomes for their eldest child ≤10 years old. Results: Among MC1R higher-risk participants, precision prevention increased sunscreen use (OR=1.74, p=0.03) and receipt of a clinical skin exam (OR=6.51, p=0.0006); and it decreased weekday sun exposure hours (ß=-0.94, p=0.005) and improved sun protection behaviors (ß=0.93, p=0.02) in their children. There were no significant intervention effects among MC1R average risk participants. The intervention did not elevate participant cancer worry. We also identified moderators of the intervention effect among both average- and higher-risk participants. Conclusions: Receipt of MC1R precision prevention materials improved some skin cancer prevention behaviors among higher-risk participants and their children and did not result in reduced prevention activities among average-risk participants. Despite these encouraging findings, levels of sun protection behaviors remained suboptimal among participants, warranting more awareness and prevention campaigns targeted to Hispanics.