Table 3. Characteristics of Studies Examining the Moderating Role of Monitoring on Interventions to Improve Knowledge, Adjustment, and Adherence.

Source	Scale Dich/Cont H/L or No-split N CR RR	Population Design	Type of Intervention	Significant Findings	Non-significant Findings
Diefenbach et al., 2012 M(4.5)	MBSS-SF Dich Sub N=91 CR=75% RR=79%	Men newly diagnosed with Pca. RCT pilot study. Pre/post measurements.	Two preparatory aids using a variety of electronic media and self-navigational aids to make a treatment decision. A detailed version and a short version.		Affective responses: Tailored group no different than non-tailored. Decision-making. As for affective responses.
Duncan et al., 2013 H(8.0)	MBSS Dich H/L N=538 CR=65% RR=52%	Cancer survivors calling the CIS with scheduled provider visit within the next three months after baseline interview. RCT.	1. Detailed information about clinical trials. 2. Less detailed information about clinical trials. Both messages encouraged patients to discuss issue with provider and provided list of questions. Print material.	Patient-physician communication: Twelve weeks later, among low monitors (LM) who received the briefer message, the proportion of survivors who initiated discussions on clinical trials was significantly greater than the proportion that did not.
Kola et al., 2013 H(7.0)	MBSS Dich H/L N=117 CR NR RR=100%	First time colposcopy patients. Intervention during procedure. Pre/post RCT.	1. Low information: Watched video during the colposcopy. 2. High information: Watched colposcopy on monitor. Asked to focus on sensations and to think of them in non-emotional terms. 3. Control group: Usual care. Minimal information given during colposcopy.	Physiological responses: LM experienced an increase in SBP during colposcopy when in the high information group and a decrease when in the low information or the control groups. High monitors (HM) experienced a decrease in SBP when in the high or low information groups but no change when in the control group. HM in the control group experienced the highest DBP than all other groups and LM in the low information group exhibited the lowest (a trend).
Lerman et al., 1996 M(6.5)	MBSS Dich Sub, H/L N=239 CR=52% RR=63%	Women undergoing BC risk counseling. RCT.	1. Risk counseling and print material with personalized risk information & preventive options. 2. Health information to control for nonspecific factors.		Affective responses: Three months later, monitoring did not interact with intervention to impact distress.
Lobb et al., 2002 M(6.0)	MBSS Dich Sub N=160 CR=80% RR=82%	Women at familial risk for BC (affected and unaffected). RCT. Three weeks follow-up.	1. Genetic counseling consultation plus receipt of an audiotape of the meeting. 2. Participation in genetic counseling only.		Seeking information: Unrelated to listening to the tape. Affective responses: No interaction with intervention.
Miller et al., 1999a H(7.5)	MBSS Dich No-split N=76 CR=71% RR=86%	Women scheduled for colposcopy. Baseline prior to colposcopy. Intervention administered just prior to examination. Follow-ups one week and six months later. RCT.	1. Loss framed information: Emphasized cost of not adhering to recommended screening behaviors. 2. Gain framed information: Emphasized benefits of adhering to recommended screening. 3. Neutrally framed information: Basic information about adhering to recommended screening behaviors. Audio form.	Knowledge: One week post-colposcopy, LM more knowledgeable in the loss framed condition. Affective responses: One week post-colposcopy, LM reported less intrusive ideation in the loss framed condition whereas HM reported more intrusive ideation. Behavioral responses: Six months post-colposcopy, LM who received the loss framed or the gain framed condition reported less cancelling/rescheduling than LM in the neutral condition.
Miller et al., 2005 M(6.0)	MBSS Dich H/L N=279 CR=57% RR=63%	Women calling the CIS about their risk for BC or OC. RCT. Six months follow-up.	1. General information about familial BC and OC. 2. More detailed, personalized information was provided and the opportunity to discuss it was given. Accompanied by an additional NCI publication.		Encoding: No interaction effects on perceived risk. Knowledge: No interaction effects.
Petersson et al., 2002 L(4.0)	MBSS Dich Sub, H/L N=442 CR=71% RR=86%	1. BC patients. 2. Pca patients. Planned as RCT but collapsed four groups into two to increase power. Pre/post.	1. Eight weekly group sessions. Includes educational component and CBT. 2. Individual support and standard care.	Affective responses: HM in the Pca group benefited more from the rehabilitation group.	Affective responses: BC patients in rehabilitation group: No change. Control group: improved.
Wakefield et al., 2007 M(4.5)	TMSI Cont H/L N=247 CR=NR RR=79%	Individuals considering genetic testing for inherited cancer risk. RCT. Six-months follow-up.	1. Decision aid: Detailed balanced information on the options and the meaning of results. Encourages listing of pros and cons. 2. Control pamphlet: Similar information but briefer.	Knowledge: Improved the most with decision aid only among HM.
Williams-Piehota et al., 2005 H(7.0)	MBSS-SF Dich Sub, H/L N=500 CR=69% RR=61%	Individuals calling CIS. RCT.	1. Monitor-focused: Detailed information regarding BC and its early detection. Reassuring statements to address anxiety. 2. Blunter-focused: basic information only.	Affective responses: HM who received the blunter- focused message reported more negative affect.	Behavioral responses: At 6-months, non-significant interaction although in the expected direction (higher screening by those who received the detailed message).
Williams-Piehota et al., 2009 H(7.0)	MBSS Dich Sub, H/L N=531 CR=67% RR=51%	Individuals calling CIS. RCT.	1. Monitor-focused: detailed information and reassuring statements. 2. Blunter-focused message: simple message highlighting benefits. Interventions were delivered in telephone and printed form at baseline, one week, two months and three months post-baseline. Final assessment at four months follow-up.	Encoding: HM who received the simple (blunter) message reported higher perceived risk. Values: Monitors who received a tailored message reported that it was more important for them to be healthy. Behavioral responses: Two months later, intake of fruits and vegetables increased when the message was matched to coping style.	Behavioral responses: Effect not observed at 4-months.
van Vliet et al., 2004 L(4.0)	TMSI Cont H/L N=260 CR NR RR NR	Patients scheduled to undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy. Pre/post RCT.	1. Extensive information, including sensory. 2. Basic information plus suggestions for distraction. 3. Less extensive information but varied a lot (control).	Affective responses: HM in the experimental conditions (both) had a more positive view of their preparation for the procedure.	Affective responses: Anxiety levels across the conditions did not differ among HM or LM.
Van Zuuren et al., 2006 M(5.0)	TMSI Cont No split & H/L N=95 CR=95% RR=100%	Patients scheduled to undergo gastrointestinal endoscopy. Pre/post RCT.	1. Mailed-in brochure with extensive sensory and procedural information combined with coping skills. 2. Basic information provided by nurse upon arrival (control).	Affective responses: Highest anxiety after the procedure experienced by HM in the control group.	Information seeking: 96% read the brochure. Monitoring not related to reading the brochure more times.

Notes. H, M, L: high, medium, low rating, respectively. Dich/Cont: a Yes/No format for each item or a 5-point Likert scale, respectively. H/L: median split was used to identify high and low monitors. No-split: analyses are based on total monitoring score. Sub: blunting score subtracted from monitoring score in order to calculate monitoring and blunting. CR: consent rate. NR: not reported.