Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice.

Predictors of willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 vaccine distribution efforts continue, public health workers can strategize about vaccine promotion in an effort to increase willingness among those who may be hesitant. METHODS: In April 2020, we surveyed a national probability sample of 2279 U.S. adults using an online panel recruited through address-based sampling. Households received a computer and internet access if needed to participate in the panel. Participants were invited via e-mail and answered online survey questions about their willingness to get a novel coronavirus vaccine when one became available. The survey was completed in English and Spanish. We report weighted percentages. RESULTS: Most respondents were willing to get the vaccine for themselves (75%) or their children (73%). Notably, Black respondents were less willing than White respondents (47% vs. 79%, p < 0.001), while Hispanic respondents were more willing than White respondents (80% vs. 75%, p < 0.003). Females were less likely than makes (72% vs. 79%, p < 0.001). Those without insurance were less willing than the insured (47% vs. 78%, p < 0.001). Willingness to vaccinate was higher for those age 65 and older than for some younger age groups (85% for those 65 and older vs. 75% for those 50-64, p < 0.017; 72% for those 35-49, p < 0.002; 70% for those 25-34, p = NS and 75% for ages 18-24, p = NS), but other groups at increased risk because of underlying medical conditions or morbid obesity were not more willing to get vaccinated than their lower risk counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Most Americans were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, but several vulnerable populations reported low willingness. Public health efforts should address these gaps as national implementation efforts continue.

Mental Models of Infectious Diseases and Public Understanding of COVID-19 Prevention.

The emergence of viral diseases such as Ebola virus disease, Zika virus disease, and the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has posed considerable challenges to health care systems around the world. Public health strategy to address emerging infectious diseases has depended in part on human behavior change and yet the perceptions and knowledge motivating that behavior have been at times inconsistent with the latest consensus of peer-reviewed science. Part of that disjuncture likely involves the existence and persistence of past ideas about other diseases. To forecast and prepare for future epidemic and pandemic response, we need to better understand how people approach emerging infectious diseases as objects of public opinion during the periods when such diseases first become salient at a population level. In this essay, we explore two examples of how existing mental models of past infectious diseases appear to have conditioned and constrained public response to novel viral diseases. We review previously reported experiences related to Zika virus in Central America and discuss public opinion data collected in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the case of Zika virus disease, we assess how thinking about earlier mosquito-borne disease seems to have affected public consideration of the virus in Guatemala. In the case of COVID-19, we assess how previous vaccination behavior for a different disease is associated with intention to obtain vaccination for COVID-19 in the future.

How accurate are Americans' perceptions of their own weight?

As obesity/overweight has increased in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009 ), studies have found that Americans' perceptions of their own weight often are not aligned with their actual body mass index (BMI; Brener et al., 2004 ; Christakis, 2003; Johnson-Taylor et al., 2008 ). Taylor, Funk, and Craighill ( 2006 ) found that half of Americans whose BMI indicated they were overweight perceived their weight to be just about right. The purpose of this study was to examine factors that influence the accuracy of weight self-perceptions and whether accuracy influences health behaviors. Using data from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey, the authors compared respondents' weight self-perceptions to their actual BMI to determine the accuracy of their weight self-perceptions. About 28%of respondents were obese, 35%were overweight, 35%were of normal weight, and 2%were underweight. About three quarters of the sample's self-perceptions of weight were aligned with their BMI. About 10%of the sample had a BMI that indicated they were overweight, but they perceived themselves to be of normal weight; about 10%were of normal weight but perceived themselves to be overweight; and about 5%of respondents were of normal weight but thought they were underweight. Gender, race, and education were associated with the accuracy of respondents' weight perceptions. Results suggest that asking patients about their weight self-perceptions could be useful in clinical settings and that weight perception accuracy could be used to segment audiences and tailor messages.

Health literacy measurement: an inventory and descriptive summary of 51 instruments.

This article aimed to provide a descriptive review of the psychometric properties and conceptual dimensions of published health literacy measurement tools. PsycINFO and PubMed search from 1999 through 2013, review of the grey literature, and an environmental scan was conducted to identify health literacy measurement tools. For each tool, we evaluated the conceptual dimensions assessed, test parameters, and psychometric properties. Of the 51 tools identified, 26 measured general health literacy, and 15 were disease or content specific, and 10 aimed at specific populations. Most tools are performance based, require in-person administration, and are exclusively available in a pencil and paper testing mode. The tools assess 0 (proxy measure) to 9 of the 11 defined dimensions of health literacy. Reported administration times vary, from less than 1 to 60 minutes. Validation procedures for most of the tools are limited by inadequate power to ensure reliability across subgroups (i.e., race, age, ethnicity, and gender). The health literacy measurement tools currently available generally represent a narrow set of conceptual dimensions with limited modes of administration. Most of the tools lack information on key psychometric properties. Significant work is needed to establish important aspects of the construct, convergent, and predictive validity for many tools. As researchers develop new measures, inclusion of a full range of conceptual dimensions of health literacy, more representative sampling for testing, and additional modes of administration will allow a more refined and flexible approach to research in this field.

Preferences for patient medication information: what do patients want?

This study investigated respondent preferences on how best to display patient medication information (PMI) that accompanies prescription medications to promote comprehension and appropriate usage. The authors identified 30 individuals diagnosed with select immune disorders, 30 with other chronic diseases, and 30 from the general public and had them review one of two PMI handouts that varied by format, organization, and content. The authors explored preferences for the PMI handout using one-on-one interviews. The authors analyzed the qualitative data to identify relevant themes and patterns using NVivo9 qualitative software. The majority of respondents noted that the formats of the two PMI handouts were more informative than those they currently receive from the pharmacist, with a preference for the 2-column, segmented design. However, respondent PMI preferences varied by age, education, and health status. Patients need simpler and more concise drug information to make better decisions about their health. Current PMI handouts are dense and complex, which can be confusing and not reader friendly. To improve PMI understandability and usefulness, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is working with stakeholders, consumer advocates, and academics. Findings from this study may help inform future development of more user-friendly PMI.

Design of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial comparing the effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for voluntary opioid tapering: The INSPIRE study protocol.

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the design and protocol of a pragmatic, randomized trial to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain for the voluntary tapering of opioid dose in adults with chronic noncancer pain. Integrated Services for Pain: Interventions to Reduce Pain Effectively (INSPIRE) is a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at three academic health centers in the southeastern United States. Participants are adults receiving long-term opioid therapy of at least 20 morphine milligram equivalents daily for chronic noncancer pain. METHODS: Participants were randomized to either the shared decision-making intervention or the motivational interviewing session and cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain intervention. All participants also received guideline-concordant care supporting opioid pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome was change from baseline in average daily prescribed opioid dose at 12 months, using prescribing data from electronic health records. Secondary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference and Physical Function at 12 months. CONCLUSION: This trial evaluates the comparative effectiveness of shared decision making versus motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain for the voluntary tapering of opioid dose in adults with chronic noncancer pain. Results from this study can guide clinicians, researchers, and policymakers as they seek to reduce opioid prescribing and improve management of chronic pain. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03454555 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03454555). Participant enrollment began on June 26, 2019.

Communicating quantitative risks and benefits in promotional prescription drug labeling or print advertising.

PURPOSE: Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, all promotional materials for prescription drugs must strike a fair balance in presentation of risks and benefits. How to best present this information is not clear. We sought to determine if the presentation of quantitative risk and benefit information in drug advertising and labeling influences consumers', patients', and clinicians' information processing, knowledge, and behavior by assessing available empirical evidence. METHODS: We used PubMed for a literature search, limiting to articles published in English from 1990 forward. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts for inclusion, after which we reviewed the full texts to determine if they communicated risk/benefit information either: (i) numerically (e.g., percent) versus non-numerically (e.g., using text such as "increased risk") or (ii) numerically using different formats (e.g., "25% of patients", "one in four patients", or use of pictographs). We abstracted information from included articles into standardized evidence tables. The research team identified a total of 674 relevant publications, of which 52 met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 37 focused on drugs. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Presenting numeric information appears to improve understanding of risks and benefits relative to non-numeric presentation; presenting both numeric and non-numeric information when possible may be best practice. No single specific format or graphical approach emerged as consistently superior. Numeracy and health literacy also deserve more empirical attention as moderators.

Recommendations for advancing health literacy measurement.

Health literacy has become a national priority in the United States. Although less is known about the rate, outcomes, and costs associated with health literacy globally relative to the United States, the subject has received increasing attention internationally as well. Definitions, conceptual models, and health literacy measures have proliferated in recent years, and consensus does not exist regarding which of these to use. This article offers the following 5 recommendations for setting a research agenda to advance the science of health literacy measurement: (a) develop a comprehensive unified conceptual framework, (b) leverage the measurement knowledge the field has gained thus far, (c) empirically test frameworks and measures using robust research methods, (d) use a tiered approach to measuring health literacy, and (e) advocate for ongoing research and dissemination. These recommendations seek to ensure clarity, rigor, and transparency as part of a systematic approach to health literacy measurement. Once these steps are taken, the field of health literacy can move forward more effectively.

The health literacy skills framework.

Although there are a variety of models and frameworks that describe factors that are associated with health literacy skills, few illustrate the full pathway from development and moderators of health literacy skills, their application, and the outcomes that result all in one framework or model. This article introduces the Health Literacy Skills conceptual framework that does encompass this full continuum. To develop the framework, the authors reviewed and built upon existing health literacy frameworks. The Health Literacy Skills framework hypothesizes the relations between health literacy and health-related outcomes and depicts how health literacy functions at the level of the individual. The framework also reflects how factors external to the individual (e.g., family, setting, community, culture, and media) influence the constructs and relations represented in the framework. The framework is organized into 4 primary components: (a) factors that influence the development and use of health literacy skills; (b) health-related stimuli; (c) health literacy skills needed to comprehend the stimulus and perform the task; and (d) mediators between health literacy and health outcomes. Previous theoretical frameworks lend support to the proposed causal pathways it illustrates. The authors hope this conceptual framework can serve as a springboard for further discussion and advancement in operationalizing this complex construct. The Health Literacy Skills framework could also be used to guide the development of interventions to improve health literacy. Future research should be conducted to fully test the relations in the framework.

The Health Literacy Skills Instrument: a 10-item short form.

The 25-item Health Literacy Skills Instrument (HLSI) was designed to measure the ability to read and understand text and locate and interpret information in documents (print literacy), to use quantitative information (numeracy), to listen effectively (oral literacy), and to seek information through the Internet (navigation). It is a publically available measure that can be used in surveillance activities, to evaluate interventions, and in research examining the relation between health literacy and health outcomes. The authors developed a 10-item, short form (SF) version of the HLSI, the HLSI-SF, using data gathered for the development of the longer form. The authors selected 10 items for inclusion in the HLSI-SF and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory analyses, then computed Cronbach's alpha. The HLSI-SF demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability (α = .70) for use in group-level comparisons. The HSLI-SF has many of the same advantages of the longer version with the additional benefit of taking only approximately 5 to 10 min to administer. The HLSI-SF offers researchers and practitioners a valid and reliable measure of health literacy skills.

Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening: the results of a combined analysis of two practice-based randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Professional societies recommend shared decision making (SDM) for prostate cancer screening, however, most efforts have promoted informed rather than shared decision making. The objective of this study is to 1) examine the effects of a prostate cancer screening intervention to promote SDM and 2) determine whether framing prostate information in the context of other clearly beneficial men's health services affects decisions. METHODS: We conducted two separate randomized controlled trials of the same prostate cancer intervention (with or without additional information on more clearly beneficial men's health services). For each trial, we enrolled a convenience sample of 2 internal medicine practices, and their interested physicians and male patients with no prior history of prostate cancer (for a total of 4 practices, 28 physicians, and 128 men across trials). Within each practice site, we randomized men to either 1) a video-based decision aid and researcher-led coaching session or 2) a highway safety video. Physicians at each site received a 1-hour educational session on prostate cancer and SDM. To assess intervention effects, we measured key components of SDM, intent to be screened, and actual screening. After finding that results did not vary by trial, we combined data across sites, adjusting for the random effects of both practice and physician. RESULTS: Compared to an attention control, our prostate cancer screening intervention increased men's perceptions that screening is a decision (absolute difference +41%; 95% CI 25 to 57%) and men's knowledge about prostate cancer screening (absolute difference +34%; 95% CI 19% to 50%), but had no effect on men's self-reported participation in shared decisions or their participation at their preferred level. Overall, the intervention decreased screening intent (absolute difference -34%; 95% CI -50% to -18%) and actual screening rates (absolute difference -22%; 95% CI -38 to -7%) with no difference in effect by frame. CONCLUSIONS: SDM interventions can increase men's knowledge, alter their perceptions of prostate cancer screening, and reduce actual screening. However, they may not guarantee an increase in shared decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT00630188.

Effects of additional context information in prescription drug information sheets on comprehension and risk and efficacy perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how additional explanatory text (context) about drug side effects in a patient medication information handout affected comprehension and perceptions of risk and efficacy. METHODS: We conducted an online experiment with a national sample of 1,119 U.S. adults with rheumatoid arthritis and related conditions, sampled through random-digit dialing, address-based sampling, and online ads. We randomized participants to receive one of several versions of a patient information handout for a fictitious drug, either with or without additional context, then measured comprehension and other outcomes. RESULTS: Additional qualitative context about warnings and side effects resulted in lower comprehension of side effect information, but not information about uses of the drug or warnings. The effect of additional context on risk perceptions depended on whether the medication handout was delivered online or through the mail. Those who received a hardcopy of the handout with additional context had higher perceived risk of side effects than those who saw the version without additional context. CONCLUSION: More clarifying information is not always better and may lead to cognitive overload, inhibiting comprehension. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Additional research should further explore effects of context in online vs. hard-copy formats before practice implications can be determined.

Americans' Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Preventive and Mitigation Behaviors and Implications for Public Health Communication.

PURPOSE: Identifying drivers of behavior is essential to develop effective messaging around COVID-19 prevention and mitigation. Our study assessed for behavioral antecedents of social distancing, wearing face coverings, and sheltering in place during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although ours is an early assessment, understanding motivation for behavior will remain critical as U.S. vaccination uptake has stalled and variants continue to pose a health threat. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey; Setting: Online assessments in April 10-13 and 17-20, 2020; Subjects: 2,279 U.S. adults identified through a national, probability-based web panel (34% response rate). Measures: self-reported behavior, perceived effectiveness and risk, worry, social norms, and knowledge. ANALYSIS: Multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: Most Americans reported social distancing (91%) and sheltering in place (86%). Just over half reported wearing face coverings (51%), whereas more (77%) said they intended to do so. Perceived effectiveness of the behavior was consistently associated with each outcome (OR = 2.34, 1.40, 2.11, respectively; all P < .01). Perceptions about the extent to which others should comply with behavior (social norms) were strongly associated with intentions to wear a face covering only (OR = 6.30, 95% CI 4.34-9.15; P < .001) and worry about getting COVID-19 was associated with sheltering in place and social distancing (OR = 2.63, 95% CI 1.15-5.00; 4.91, 95% CI 1.66, 14.50, respectively; all P < .05). CONCLUSION: Behavioral constructs were strongly associated with COVID-19 preventive and mitigation behaviors and have implications for communication.

Gaps in Knowledge About COVID-19 Among US Residents Early in the Outbreak.

OBJECTIVES: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulting from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 began to affect the United States in early 2020. This study aimed to assess the US public's initial understanding about the disease and virus to inform public health communication efforts. METHODS: We conducted a survey of US households from February 28 through March 2, 2020, using a probability-based web-panel survey of 1021 US residents. To assess knowledge about COVID-19, we asked respondents a series of 16 true/false questions. We conducted descriptive statistics and linear regression analyses to examine differences in knowledge scores based on demographic and background characteristics. RESULTS: Knowledge about COVID-19 and the virus was relatively low overall at the beginning of the outbreak, with average scores of 62% on a 16-item knowledge index (ie, answers for 6 of the 16 questions were incorrect or unknown). Knowledge was especially low among people who had low education and income levels, were unemployed, were Hispanic, were non-Hispanic Black, were aged 18-24 and 35-49, indicated having "other" health insurance, and had limited exposure to information about the pandemic. Non-Hispanic Black respondents were less knowledgeable about COVID-19 and the virus at every education level compared with non-Hispanic White respondents at higher education levels. Non-Hispanic Black respondents with

Health literacy: what is it?

The concept of health literacy evolved from a history of defining, redefining, and quantifying the functional literacy needs of the adult population. Along with these changes has come the recognition that sophisticated literacy skills are increasingly needed to function in society and that low literacy may have an effect on health and health care. We present a brief history of literacy in the United States, followed by a discussion of the origins and conceptualization of health literacy. Increased attention to this important issue suggests the need to review existing definitions of the term "health literacy," because despite the growing interest in this field, one question that persists is, "What is health literacy?"