About

Karen Glanz, PhD, MPH, is the George A. Weiss University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania and an affiliated faculty member at the Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economies (CHIBE). She holds multiple roles within the university, including being a distinguished fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, a faculty fellow at the Penn Institute for Urban Research, and a senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economies. Her research focuses on health behavior, health education, and public health, with involvement in various research centers and institutes such as the Skin Diseases Research Center, the Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics, and the Center for Health Equity Research. Glanz is also a core director at the Abramson Cancer Center's ROAR program and a member of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Graduate Group. Her educational background includes a B.A. in Spanish from the University of Michigan, an M.P.H. in Health Behavior and Health Education, and a Ph.D. in the same field from the University of Michigan. She is actively involved in research related to health behavior change, community engagement, and health disparities, contributing extensively to the academic community through her publications and leadership roles.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Environmental health
• Psychology
• Gerontology
• Family medicine

Selected publications

• Data from Digital Skin Cancer Risk Reduction Interventions for Young Adults: Findings from a Hybrid Type-II Effectiveness-Implementation Trial

  2025-06-03

  preprintOpen accessSenior author

  <div>AbstractBackground:<p>Engagement in sun protection behaviors is low among young adults (ages 18–25 years). Efficacious sun safety interventions for this at-risk population and information on intervention engagement and costs are needed. The purpose was to conduct secondary analyses examining intervention implementation strategies and outcomes (e.g., engagement), intervention moderators, and costs of three digital interventions to increase sun protection behaviors previously evaluated for effectiveness in a randomized controlled trial.</p>Methods:<p>The randomized controlled trial compared three conditions: a basic efficacious intervention, an enhanced version of the intervention, and an educational e-pamphlet. Sun protection measures, intervention engagement and implementation, putative moderators, and intervention costs were assessed through 1 year.</p>Results:<p>Engagement (4.6 of 12 modules completed) was similar for basic and enhanced interventions. Engagement was significantly associated with sun protection. Men and individuals with lower tanning ability completed more modules than women and those with higher tanning ability. Enhanced was more effective than basic for men (but not women) through 1 year. After initial development, both active interventions were similar in cost per person at larger sample sizes.</p>Conclusions:<p>Despite attempts at enhancement, engagement in basic and enhanced was similar. Although all interventions were costly to create, they were less costly to maintain and could be scaled up for dissemination. Based on both engagement and effects on sun protection, the enhanced intervention would be recommended for men, women, or both.</p>Impact:<p>This digital intervention offers the potential to reduce skin cancer risk in a large population of US young adults.</p></div>

  PublisherDOI

• Supplementary Table 1 from Digital Skin Cancer Risk Reduction Interventions for Young Adults: Findings from a Hybrid Type-II Effectiveness-Implementation Trial

  2025-06-03

  supplementary-materialsOpen accessSenior author

  <p>Supplementary Table 1 shows intervention start-up and delivery costs by intervention arm in 2021 US$.</p>

  PublisherDOI

• Sequential choice vs colonoscopy outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Design and rationale of a pragmatic randomized clinical trial

  Contemporary Clinical Trials · 2025-12-17

  articleOpen access

  BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain limited, and effective methods for offering the choice of colonoscopy or stool testing through outreach have not been identified. We evaluate the effect of sequential choice compared to colonoscopy outreach on screening completion, and further evaluate behavioral nudges in the electronic health record (EHR). METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized clinical trial, patients were randomly allocated in a 1:2:2 ratio to 1) usual care (no outreach), 2) colonoscopy only, or 3) sequential choice of colonoscopy, then fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Patients in arms 2 and 3 were additionally randomized to receive either (a) usual care, or (b) a visit-based, clinician-directed nudge facilitated by the EHR with follow-up texting to the patient. The primary outcome is CRC screening completion within 3 years by either colonoscopy, 2 negative fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), or 1 positive FIT followed by colonoscopy within one year. ANALYSIS: For the patient-directed analysis, the primary outcome will be evaluated by comparing CRC screening completion among patients randomized to either outreach arm (2 or 3) to the no outreach arm (1). We will also compare completion between the colonoscopy only arm (1) and the sequential choice arm (2). For the visit-based analysis, we will compare CRC screening completion among patients between the usual care arms (2a and 3a) and the nudge arms (2b and 3b). CONCLUSION: This trial is unique in evaluating the long-term effectiveness of offering sequential choice to colonoscopy alone through a multi-level, centralized outreach and visit-based design. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: NCT05693649.

  PublisherDOI

• The role of dignity in food assistance: Participant experiences with a free meal kit program

  Social Science & Medicine · 2025-04-06 · 2 citations

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Digital Skin Cancer Risk Reduction Interventions for Young Adults: Findings from a Hybrid Type-II Effectiveness-Implementation Trial

  Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2025-03-25

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  BACKGROUND: Engagement in sun protection behaviors is low among young adults (ages 18-25 years). Efficacious sun safety interventions for this at-risk population and information on intervention engagement and costs are needed. The purpose was to conduct secondary analyses examining intervention implementation strategies and outcomes (e.g., engagement), intervention moderators, and costs of three digital interventions to increase sun protection behaviors previously evaluated for effectiveness in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The randomized controlled trial compared three conditions: a basic efficacious intervention, an enhanced version of the intervention, and an educational e-pamphlet. Sun protection measures, intervention engagement and implementation, putative moderators, and intervention costs were assessed through 1 year. RESULTS: Engagement (4.6 of 12 modules completed) was similar for basic and enhanced interventions. Engagement was significantly associated with sun protection. Men and individuals with lower tanning ability completed more modules than women and those with higher tanning ability. Enhanced was more effective than basic for men (but not women) through 1 year. After initial development, both active interventions were similar in cost per person at larger sample sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite attempts at enhancement, engagement in basic and enhanced was similar. Although all interventions were costly to create, they were less costly to maintain and could be scaled up for dissemination. Based on both engagement and effects on sun protection, the enhanced intervention would be recommended for men, women, or both. IMPACT: This digital intervention offers the potential to reduce skin cancer risk in a large population of US young adults.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Community perspectives on cancer and cancer research: findings from listening sessions with diverse groups in Philadelphia

  Discover Public Health · 2025-06-09 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Background: Listening sessions are useful for understanding community perspectives on cancer disparities. The Philadelphia Communities Conquering Cancer (PC3) coalition conducted listening sessions to identify community priorities for cancer prevention and control research among diverse communities in Philadelphia. Methods: Guided by a Stakeholder Advisory Committee, PC3 partnered with community-based organizations to conduct 8 listening sessions with diverse communities (including Black, Hispanic, Asian, Russian, LGBTQ + , and veterans) to learn about perceptions of cancer, research priorities, and training and communication preferences. Sessions were facilitated by community members or PC3 members in the primary language of participants. Sessions were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded. NVivo analysis software was used to confirm main themes. Results: There were 126 participants who ranged in age from 21 to 90. Participants were primarily female (78.6%), 60 + years of age (61%), and non-white (80%), with less than college education (75%). Participants' general views of cancer were negative and shrouded in helplessness and burden. Cancer research was viewed both positively and negatively. Hesitation to participate in research was related to negative experiences, language barriers, distrust, and lack of information. Participants preferred receiving information about research from sources that they considered to be reputable and in their preferred languages. Participants thought that community researcher trainings could be facilitated by incentives, transportation, and flexibility in scheduling. Conclusions: Common themes and perspectives about cancer, research, and barriers to cancer care were shared across groups. Identifying and implementing community-derived strategies for overcoming barriers can increase cancer research participation among diverse populations and help reduce cancer disparities. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12982-025-00713-4.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Correction: Psychosocial correlates of parents’ willingness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19

  PLoS ONE · 2025-04-29

  erratumOpen access

  [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305877.].

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Supplementary Figure 1 from Digital Skin Cancer Risk Reduction Interventions for Young Adults: Findings from a Hybrid Type-II Effectiveness-Implementation Trial

  2025-06-03

  preprintOpen accessSenior author

  <p>Supplementary Figure 1 shows per-person intervention delivery costs by intervention arm (2021$). As more participants enroll, per person costs would decrease for each intervention, as does the difference in costs between arms.</p>

  PublisherDOI

• The Impact of a Community Partner Research Training Program

  Journal of Cancer Education · 2025-08-22

  articleOpen access

  As part of its mission to address disparities in cancer outcomes and research participation, the Philadelphia Communities Conquering Cancer (PC3) coalition conducted a Community Partner Research Training program. The goal was to increase knowledge about cancer research and to prepare community members to partner on research activities. Eighteen out of 36 applicants were selected for a 5-week training program on research methods. Trainees completed baseline (N = 18) and follow-up surveys (N = 10) to measure knowledge acquisition. Demographic data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. For repeated cross-sectional group comparisons, Wilcoxon nonparametric tests were used to test statistical differences between medians on baseline and follow-up surveys. P-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Trainees were mostly female (78%). Median age was 61.5 years. Forty-four percent were Black, 22% White, 17% Asian, and 17% other race. Twenty-eight percent were Hispanic. Forty-four percent were cancer survivors. We observed that perceived knowledge about research generally increased post-training from a median of 2 to 4 across a 5-point Likert scale (p < 0.001). This increase is shown for several items, including "how to conduct a research study" and "how to share findings with the community." Program ratings averaged 4 out of 5, indicating positive participant experiences in program organization and content. Involving diverse populations in cancer research is crucial for reducing health disparities. This training program demonstrated that it is feasible to increase knowledge about cancer research methodology among community partners. These results will be used to guide future research activities with PC3.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Digital Interventions to Modify Skin Cancer Risk Behaviors in a National Sample of Young Adults: Randomized Controlled Trial

  Journal of Medical Internet Research · 2024-04-10 · 6 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  BACKGROUND: Young adults engage in behaviors that place them at risk for skin cancer. Dissemination of digital health promotion interventions via social media is a potentially promising strategy to modify skin cancer risk behaviors by increasing UV radiation (UVR) protection and skin cancer examinations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare 3 digital interventions designed to modify UVR exposure, sun protection, and skin cancer detection behaviors among young adults at moderate to high risk of skin cancer. METHODS: This study was a hybrid type II effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial of 2 active interventions, a digital skin cancer risk reduction intervention (UV4.me [basic]) compared with an enhanced version (UV4.me2 [enhanced]), and an electronic pamphlet (e-pamphlet). Intervention effects were assessed over the course of a year among 1369 US young adults recruited primarily via Facebook and Instagram. Enhancements to encourage intervention engagement and behavior change included more comprehensive goal-setting activities, ongoing proactive messaging related to previously established mediators (eg, self-efficacy) of UVR exposure and protection, embedded incentives for module completion, and ongoing news and video updates. Primary outcome effects assessed via linear regression were UVR exposure and sun protection and protection habits. Secondary outcome effects assessed via logistic regression were skin self-exams, physician skin exams, sunscreen use, indoor tanning, and sunburn. RESULTS: The active interventions increased sun protection (basic: P=.02; enhanced: P<.001) and habitual sun protection (basic: P=.04; enhanced P=.01) compared with the e-pamphlet. The enhanced intervention increased sun protection more than the basic one. Each active intervention increased sunscreen use at the 3-month follow-up (basic: P=.03; enhanced: P=.01) and skin self-exam at 1 year (basic: P=.04; enhanced: P=.004), compared with the e-pamphlet. Other intervention effects and differences between the Basic and Enhanced Intervention effects were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The active interventions were effective in improving several skin cancer risk and skin cancer prevention behaviors. Compared with the basic intervention, the enhanced intervention added to the improvement in sun protection but not other behaviors. Future analyses will explore intervention engagement (eg, proportion of content reviewed). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03313492; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03313492.

  PublisherDOI

Recent grants

• NIH Grant R01PH000018

  NIH · $2.5M · 2009

• NIH Grant R01EY016997

  NIH · $1.4M · 2012

• NIH Grant R01CA076419

  NIH · $1.5M · 2004

• NIH Grant U48DP000043

  NIH · $10.6M · 2009

• University of Pennsylvania Prevention Research Center

  NIH · $8.7M · 2014–2019

Frequent coauthors

• Jacqueline Kerr

  105 shared

• Kevin Moran

  Northwestern University

  100 shared

• Suneeta Godbole

  University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

  100 shared

• Kate Murray

  Queensland University of Technology

  100 shared

• J. Aaron Hipp

  North Carolina State University

  100 shared

• Peter James

  100 shared

• Francine Laden

  Brigham and Women's Hospital

  100 shared

• Alan R. Kristal

  Fred Hutch Cancer Center

  67 shared

Labs

• Karen Glanz LabPI

Awards & honors

• Distinguished Fellow, Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC)
• Faculty Fellow, Penn Institute for Urban Research (IUR)
• Senior Fellow, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economies (…
• Senior Fellow, Center for Public Health Initiatives (CPHI)
• Senior Scholar, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostat…