The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 42 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Understanding tailoring in communicating about health
Open accessAbstract
'Tailoring' refers to any of a number of methods for creating communications individualized for their receivers, with the expectation that this individualization will lead to larger intended effects of these communications. Results so far have been generally positive but not consistently so, and this paper seeks to explicate tailoring to help focus future research. Tailoring involves either or both of two classes of goals (enhancing cognitive preconditions for message processing and enhancing message impact through modifying behavioral determinants of goal outcomes) and employs strategies of personalization, feedback and content matching. These goals and strategies intersect in a 2 x 3 matrix in which some strategies and their component tactics match better to some goals than to others. The paper illustrates how this framework can be systematically applied in generating research questions and identifying appropriate study designs for tailoring research.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This conceptual paper argues that “tailoring” in health communication is not a unitary construct but involves two goal classes—enhancing message processing and modifying behavioral determinants—and three strategies: personalization, feedback, and content matching. It proposes a 2 × 3 goals-by-strategies matrix to guide more precise research on what aspects of tailoring work and how.
Key findings
- Tailoring is better understood as continuous degrees of audience segmentation and message customization rather than as discrete categories of mass, targeted, and tailored communication.
- The paper identifies two broad tailoring goals: enhancing cognitive preconditions for message processing/acceptance and enhancing message impact by modifying behavioral determinants of outcomes.
- It proposes three tailoring strategies—personalization, feedback, and content matching—with personalization tactics including identification, raising expectation, and contextualization; feedback types including descriptive, comparative, and evaluative; and content matching directed at key theoretical determinants.
- The paper notes that >100 tailoring studies have been published and that the National Cancer Institute alone invested ∼$130 million in tailored communication research for cancer prevention and control since 1999; it also cites a meta-analysis concluding tailored print interventions are more effective than non-tailored ones.
Methods
- Conceptual/theoretical paper, described as a “white paper” from an NCI Centers of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research working group; it is not a systematic review or primary empirical study.
- The authors synthesize existing tailoring research and theory, cite illustrative studies, and propose a framework linking tailoring goals, strategies, and tactics.
- They recommend future designs including presence-versus-absence/dismantling designs, parametric or “dosing” designs, constructive designs, and designs comparing degrees of segmentation and customization.
Limitations
- The authors state that a thorough review of tailoring research is not their purpose and that some parts of the framework have been taken for granted by researchers or represent suggestions and speculations by the authors.
- They state that no research has tested the proposed effects and mechanisms of tailored feedback, nor compared effects of different types or combinations of feedback in tailored health communication programs.
- They also state that research on dose as the number of tailored communications received has been limited and inconclusive; the text makes evident that the proposed 2 × 3 matrix is not empirically validated in this paper.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
32 Own interpretation · 27 Not checked yet · 8 No basis given · 1 Own result
In the paper
“The reference group used in comparative feedback can itself be tailored.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] Kreuter MW, Steger-May K, Bobra S, et al. Sociocultural characteristics and responses to cancer education materials among African American women. Cancer Control. 2003;10(Suppl.):69–80. doi: 10.1177/107327480301005s10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most studies of tailored content matching (or of other methods of tailoring) compared the experimental group with a group that received a general audience or group-targeted communication.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because segmentation and customization rely on information about individuals and are arguably most effective when this information is detailed and relevant to targeted behaviors, individual-based assessments are often integral to tailored interventions.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“early studies showed that tailored messages were more likely than non-tailored messages to be read and remembered [14, 15].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Skinner C, Strecher V, Hospers H. Physicians' recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference? Am J Public Health. 1994;84:43–9. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.1.43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [15] Campbell M, DeVellis B, Strecher VJ, et al. Improving dietary behavior: the effectiveness of tailored messages in primary care settings. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:783–7. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.5.783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seen in this light, the three traditional types are not discrete categories, but overlapping segments of the continua.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effortful processing is more likely to include counterarguing, evaluations of credibility, and other processes that may lessen message effects.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In a study of weight loss materials, those receiving tailored messages generated significantly more ‘personal connections’ to the materials—defined as any thought or idea linking the weight loss information to the recipient's personal situation or experience—than did those receiving non-tailored materials [19].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Kreuter MW, Bull F, Clark EM, et al. Understanding how people process health information: a comparison of tailored and untailored weight loss materials. Health Psychol. 1999;18:487–94. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.18.5.487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Central processing typically also leads to deeper and more persistent persuasion than does peripheral processing [16, 17].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Pettey R, Priester J, Brinol P. Mass media attitude change: implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Bryant J, Zillmann D, editors. Media effects. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. pp. 155–98. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [17] Chaiken S, Trope Y. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“a meta-analysis of tailoring studies makes it clear that employing theoretical constructs enhances effects [9].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:673–93. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A related idea is that tailoring, perhaps again by enhancing perceived relevance and thus personal involvement [4], elicits what the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) refers to as ‘central route’ processing or elaboration [16, 17]: careful consideration of persuasive arguments and more systematic utilization of the receiver's own schemas and memories [18].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Skinner CM, Campbell MK, Rimer BJ, et al. How effective is tailored print communication? Ann Behav Med. 1999;21:290–8. doi: 10.1007/BF02895960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [16] Pettey R, Priester J, Brinol P. Mass media attitude change: implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Bryant J, Zillmann D, editors. Media effects. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. pp. 155–98. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [17] Chaiken S, Trope Y. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [18] Kreuter MW, Holt C. How do people process health information? Applications in an age of individualized communication. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2001;10:206–9. [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
- It may state two separate claims as one. 23
In the paper
“Some tailoring studies have used such designs [19].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Kreuter MW, Bull F, Clark EM, et al. Understanding how people process health information: a comparison of tailored and untailored weight loss materials. Health Psychol. 1999;18:487–94. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.18.5.487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We know of no research testing these proposed effects and mechanisms of effect of tailored feedback, nor of research comparing effects of different types or combinations of feedback in tailored health communication programs.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As noted at the outset of this section, the three tailoring strategies are frequently used in combination with each other and can even occur within a single message.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some such research already exists, labeled as comparing undifferentiated versus ‘targeted’ or ‘targeted’ versus ‘tailored’ messages.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although differences between the three feedback tactics are subtle in practice, it seems possible that some might be more effective for certain individuals under certain circumstances.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Another comparative feedback tactic gathers data from the same individuals over time and messages report on progress over time (i.e. self-comparison) [40].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Velicer W, Prochaska J, Fava JL, et al. Interactive versus noninteractive interventions and dose-response relationships for stage-matched smoking cessation programs in a managed care setting. Health Psychol. 1999;18:21–8. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.18.1.21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Research on this dimension of dose has been limited and inconclusive [40].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Velicer W, Prochaska J, Fava JL, et al. Interactive versus noninteractive interventions and dose-response relationships for stage-matched smoking cessation programs in a managed care setting. Health Psychol. 1999;18:21–8. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.18.1.21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tailored evaluative feedback varies in the depth of inference made.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tailoring involves either or both of two classes of goals (enhancing cognitive preconditions for message processing and enhancing message impact through modifying behavioral determinants of goal outcomes) and employs strategies of personalization, feedback and content matching.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“Claims about why and how tailoring enhances health communication fall into two distinct classes of mechanisms: (i) that tailoring enhances cognitive preconditions for message processing or acceptance and (ii) that it enhances message impact by selectively modifying initial behavioral determinants of desired outcomes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These goals and strategies intersect in a 2 × 3 matrix in which some strategies and their component tactics match better to some goals than to others.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using information about particular individuals (tailoring in categorical terms) may customize to a yet more specific segment but is not a qualitatively different strategy.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is a growing consensus that these three constructs serve as the principal determinants of intention to perform a given behavior and that each is itself based on a set of underlying beliefs [9, 25, 26].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:673–93. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [25] Fishbein M, Triandis HC, Kanfer FH, et al. Factors influencing behavior and behavior change. In: Baum A, Revenson TR, Singer JE, editors. Handbook of Health Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001. pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [26] Speaking of Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002. IOM Committee on Communication for Behavior Change in the 21st Century Improving the Health of Diverse Populations. [Google Scholar]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Results so far have been generally positive but not consistently so, and this paper seeks to explicate tailoring to help focus future research.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“typically showing tailoring to be more effective than undifferentiated messages, though some studies have found no differences [4–8].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] Skinner CM, Campbell MK, Rimer BJ, et al. How effective is tailored print communication? Ann Behav Med. 1999;21:290–8. doi: 10.1007/BF02895960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [5] Strecher V. Computer-tailored smoking cessation materials: a review and discussion. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;36:107–17. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00128-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [6] Brug J. Dutch research into development and impact of computer-tailored nutrition education. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999;53:S78–82. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1600808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [7] Lancaster T, Stead L, Silagy C. Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library. Br Med J. 2000;321:355–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7257.355. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [8] Ryan P, Lauver D. The efficacy of tailored interventions. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2002;34:331–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2002.00331.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and employs strategies of personalization, feedback and content matching.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“We propose that ‘personalization’, ‘feedback’ and ‘content matching’ are three distinct strategies through which the above tailoring goals can be achieved.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But as one reads and thinks more about such tailoring, it becomes apparent that tailoring has encompassed a diverse set of both message construction methods and the psychological and social processes (generally assumed) by which enhanced communication effects are brought about.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Since positive emotions tend to reduce effortful processing and negative emotions enhance it, emotion arousal could elicit varying cognitive processing [22].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Forgas JP. Affect in social judgments and decisions: a multiprocess model. Adv Exp Psychol. 1992;25:227–75. [Google Scholar]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it obscures the more useful idea that individualizing health communication involves two linked processes, segmentation and customization, each of which varies continuously (Fig. 1).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent meta-analysis of tailoring studies utilizing print messages also concluded that tailored interventions are more effective than non-tailored ones and further explored a useful range of moderators of these effects [9].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:673–93. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(ii) the evaluation contains content information in that it gives a meaning to the factual psychological or behavioral state, thereby changing relevant beliefs,”
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Feedback and content matching strategies are intended primarily to stimulate particular intermediate impacts, but they may also affect processing.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The more one knows about what influences performance of a given behavior, the more likely one can design an intervention to change or reinforce that behavior.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and (iii) and the whole feedback text may increase the sense of ‘being acknowledged’.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“One reason may be that the receiver could perceive the tailoring agent to be highly insightful and skilled (i.e. credible) and perceives more presence [37] from the communication, just as deeper level reflections build rapport and encourage change in psychological counseling [41, 42].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Lee KM. Presence, explicated. Commun Theory. 2004;14:27–50. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [41] Carkhauff RR, Cannon J, Pierce R, et al. The Skills of Helping: An Introduction to Counseling Skills. Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press; 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [42] Miller WR, Rollnick S. Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change. 2nd. New York: Guilford Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In effect, such designs test whether some example of segmentation/customization (tailoring) is more effective than little or no segmentation and customization.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such inferences, if correct, can yield new insights into a person's behavioral or psychological states, and we hypothesize that messages based on these inferences may be especially potent in changing beliefs.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It may also produce non-specific effects such as ‘feeling acknowledged’, ‘feeling understood’ or creating a sense of presence [37, 38], which could build rapport and favorably influence interpretation of the tailoring agent's motives or lower resistance to persuasion.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Lee KM. Presence, explicated. Commun Theory. 2004;14:27–50. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [38] Walther JB, Pingree S, Hawkins RP, et al. Attributes of online interactive health information systems. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7:e33. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.3.e33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Comparative feedback may be especially effective among individuals for whom normative beliefs are important determinants of a given behavior.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Tailoring on contextual variables alone may not be sufficient to bring about changes in behavior but might enhance the effects of other tailoring strategies on impact variables.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Kreuter MW, Skinner C, Holt CL, et al. Cultural tailoring for mammography and fruit and vegetable intake among low-income African American women in urban public health centers. Prev Med. 2005;41:53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Identification has increased effects in some studies [29] but had no effects in others [33].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Dijkstra A. Working mechanisms of computer-tailored health education: evidence from smoking cessation. Health Educ Res. 2005;20:527–39. doi: 10.1093/her/cyh014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [33] Bull F, Kreuter MW, Scharff DP, et al. Effects of tailored, personalized, and general materials on physical activity. Patient Educ Coun. 1999;36:181–92. doi: 10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00134-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, personalization might lead to more positive thoughts but only when arguments are strong.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Women who received magazines tailored on both constructs were most likely to report getting mammograms and to have increased fruit and vegetable consumption [36].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Kreuter MW, Skinner C, Holt CL, et al. Cultural tailoring for mammography and fruit and vegetable intake among low-income African American women in urban public health centers. Prev Med. 2005;41:53–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.10.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such overreaching may then undermine tailoring not only by yielding less relevant messages based on erroneous conclusions about the individual but also by compromising the credibility of the tailoring program.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“‘Feedback with evaluation’ would seem to have at least three potential effects: (i) the factual feedback links the information to the individual, thereby increasing involvement;”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, personalization and feedback might be hypothesized to lead to greater personal relevance, attention to messages, and greater elaboration [44].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Kreuter MW, Skinner C, Steger-May K, et al. Responses to behaviorally vs. culturally tailored cancer communication for African American women. Am J Health Behav. 2004;28:195–207. doi: 10.5993/ajhb.28.3.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Descriptive feedback ranges from simply restating or acknowledging information (e.g. ‘You said you smoke a pack of cigarettes per day.’) to providing information based on more complex processing of their responses (e.g. ‘Based on your answers, we determined that you eat 24 grams of fat per day.’).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although differences between the three feedback tactics are subtle in practice, it seems possible that some might be more effective for certain individuals under certain circumstances.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the case of weak arguments, personalization might lead to more counterargumentation and less desired effects.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Personalization strategies are generally used to enhance message processing, though there is some evidence that they may also affect behavior directly [29].”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Dijkstra A. Working mechanisms of computer-tailored health education: evidence from smoking cessation. Health Educ Res. 2005;20:527–39. doi: 10.1093/her/cyh014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: A message not attended to can have little or no effect.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a final step in this explication, we suggested that strategies and goals are often linked, with personalization more often affecting processing goals and feedback and content matching more related to outcomes.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, claims and evidence of tailoring's effectiveness are based on a variety of goals, both to alter message processing and to directly impact useful intermediate outcomes.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because segmentation and customization rely on information about individuals and are arguably most effective when this information is detailed and relevant to targeted behaviors, individual-based assessments are often integral to tailored interventions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beyond this, we have argued that all tailoring employs one or more of three basic strategies, which subsume further distinctions of tactics.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first argument that tailoring is not unitary results from the dual continua of audience segmentation and message customization: both are matters of degree, not categorical, and tailoring in practice thus varies continuously and relies on the linkage of the two.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because segmentation and customization rely on information about individuals and are arguably most effective when this information is detailed and relevant to targeted behaviors, individual-based assessments are often integral to tailored interventions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
A message not attended to can have little or no effect.
“Obviously, a message not attended to can have little or no effect, so it should be no surprise that a common aim of tailoring is simply to increase attention (either the likelihood of processing the message at all or how far through the communication the receiver persists [13]), thus presumably increasing comprehension, itself necessary to effects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Greater degrees of segmentation and customization increase cost and effort.
“Also, greater degrees of segmentation and customization increase cost and effort.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The more one knows about what influences performance of a given behavior, the more likely one can design an intervention to change or reinforce that behavior.
“Clearly, the more one knows about what influences performance of a given behavior, the more likely one can design an intervention to change or reinforce that behavior.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In practice, personalization, feedback and content matching are almost always combined.
“Although we describe the three strategies separately for conceptual clarity and those planning tailored communications should consider their separate advantages and disadvantages, in practice they are almost always combined.”
The paper relies on this without support.
We are currently quite far from the fully individualized tailoring ideal and approaching it will be difficult.
“We recognize that we are currently quite far from that ideal and also that approaching it will be difficult (note that Fig. 1 places tailoring as now practiced more or less at the center of both continua).”
The paper relies on this without support.
If someone has a strong intention to perform a given behavior and has the necessary skills and abilities, and if there are no environmental constraints to prevent behavioral performance, then the probability of the behavior is high.
“Ideally, if someone has a strong intention to perform a given behavior and has the necessary skills and abilities, and if there are no environmental constraints to prevent behavioral performance, then the probability of the behavior is high.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Tailored feedback is generally assumed to provide social comparison information that may focus effortful processing on self-evaluation and normative comparison to stimulate changes in perceived norms, attitudes or beliefs.
“By comparing a person's attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to those of others, tailored feedback is generally assumed to provide social comparison information that may focus effortful processing on self-evaluation and normative comparison to stimulate changes in perceived norms, attitudes or beliefs.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Studies of personalization in health care and medicine have been increasing in number since the early 2000s [22], with growing evidence showing their effectiveness [23-26].”
From The Personalization of Conversational Agents in Health Care: Systematic Review (2019) · cites this paper as [24]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Experts in health behavior change have shown that conveying health information without considering individual differences may inhibit behavior change [20-26].”
From Tailored web-based interventions for pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“which is thought to be the essence of tailored approaches [21]”
From Tailored web-based interventions for pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis (2017) · cites this paper as [21]
Citations
Cites
Motivational interviewing: preparing people for change.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002) · Cited by 7,002
(1999) · Cited by 6,104
Nature and Operation of Attitudes
Ajzen, I. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27 · Cited by 4,321
Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions
Noar, S. M., Benac, C. N., & Harris, M. S. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673 · Cited by 2,136
The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis
Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371 · Cited by 1,361 · cited 1×
“Such self-referential thinking may also increase the likelihood of central processing [23].”
Background(2018) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315167534 · Cited by 1,147
Handbook of health communication
Thompson, T. L. (2008) · Cited by 1,121
Tailored and Targeted Health Communication: Strategies for Enhancing Information Relevance
Kreuter, M. W., & Wray, R. J. (2003) · American Journal of Health Behavior · doi:10.5993/ajhb.27.1.s3.6 · Cited by 1,095
Self-citationBryant, J. (2013) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203873694 · Cited by 992
The Role of Theory in Uses and Gratifications Studies
Blumler, J. G. (1979) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365027900600102 · Cited by 904
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [30]Geller L. Customer retention begins with basics. Direct Mark. 1997;60:58–62. [Google Scholar]
- [37]Lee KM. Presence, explicated. Commun Theory. 2004;14:27–50. [Google Scholar]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions
Lustria, M. L. A., Noar, S. M., Cortese, J., Van Stee, S. K., Glueckauf, R. L., & Lee, J. (2013) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.768727 · Cited by 689
Efficacy of text messaging-based interventions for health promotion: A meta-analysis
Head, K. J., Noar, S. M., Iannarino, N. T., & Harrington, N. G. (2013) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.003 · Cited by 647
Computer-tailored health interventions delivered over the web: Review and analysis of key components
Lustria, M. L. A., Cortese, J., Noar, S. M., & Glueckauf, R. L. (2009) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.08.023 · Cited by 566
“The final technique, adaptation or content matching, refers to creating content packages that are pertinent to an individual and selected based on known determinants of the targeted behavior [12,69].”
BackgroundPersonalization versus Customization: The Importance of Agency, Privacy, and Power Usage
Sundar, S. S., & Marathe, S. S. (2010) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01377.x · Cited by 588
“For example, Ho (2006) found that although participants were interested in Internet personalization services, they were concerned about the amount of personal information that the Website would collect, the purpose for which the information will be used, the likelihood that their personal information may be circulated…”
Fox, J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2009) · Media Psychology · doi:10.1080/15213260802669474 · Cited by 493
“Several scholars working with health campaigns and entertainment-education have argued for the effectiveness of tailoring mass messages to create individual-specific treatments (Bock, Marcus, Pinto, & Forsyth, 2001; Hawkins, Kreuter, Resnicow, Fishbein, & Dijkstra, 2008; Singhal & Rogers, 2002).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Hawkins, R. P., Kreuter, M., Resnicow, K., Fishbein, M., & Dijkstra, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Saint Louis University (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Hawkins, R. P.
- Venue
- Health Education Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-06-01
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 454-466
- ISSN
- 0268-1153 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-3648
- PMC
- PMC3171505
- OpenAlex
- W2162486273
- Semantic Scholar
- 2726edb4ea8a922748ad9c8aeb548785670e22fe
- Cited by
- 934
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 77 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 32
- FWCI
- 667.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Health Education Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA114539)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- tailoring, health communication, personalized communication, personalization, feedback, content matching, behavioral factors
- MeSH terms
- Attention, Cognition, Communication, Goals, Health Education, Health Services Research, Humans, Patient Education as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
