Back

Psychosocial mediators for the impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention and early detection behaviors

Wang, S. E.; Espinoza, D.; Lo, S.; Smit, A. K.; Cust, A. E.

2026-05-10 epidemiology
10.64898/2026.05.07.26352695 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundIn the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study, access to personal genomic risk testing led to improvements in some melanoma prevention and early detection behaviors. PurposeWe aimed to examine the hypothesized psychosocial mediators of the effects observed in the trial. MethodsAustralians of European ancestry without melanoma and aged 18-69 years were recruited via the national Medicare database and randomized to receive personal genomic risk information or usual care (N=1,025). Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 1-month post-intervention, and 12-months post-baseline to assess self-reported prevention and early detection behaviors and psychosocial measures. To identify potential mediators, we first evaluated the interventions effect on psychosocial measures and the associations between psychosocial measures and behavioral outcomes. We then estimated the natural indirect effects (NIEs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to quantify the effects mediated by potential mediators identified. ResultsAmong participants with high traditional melanoma risk, the interventions effect on increased sun protection at 1-month was partially mediated by changes in perceived importance [NIE mean difference (95% CI): 0.02 (0.00, 0.04)] and perceived effectiveness [0.01 (0.00, 0.03)] of sun protection strategies. Among women, the interventions effect on increased whole-body skin examinations at 1-month was partially mediated by perceived capability to engage in skin examinations [NIE odds ratio (95% CI): 1.08 (1.00, 1.29)] and perceived control over detecting a future melanoma [1.13 (1.03, 1.32)]. ConclusionsThe effectiveness of precision prevention and early detection interventions may be enhanced by targeting key psychosocial mediators through tailored communication of personal melanoma risk.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.0%
2
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.6%
3
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 22%
8.6%
4
British Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
5
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.4%
6
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
7
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
8
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.7%
9
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.1%
10
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
11
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.6%
12
Annals of Oncology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.8%
13
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
14
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
15
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.5%
16
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.4%
18
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
19
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
21
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
22
Journal of Translational Medicine
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.8%
24
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 46%
0.7%
25
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
26
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
27
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
28
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%