Colorectal cancer information avoidance is associated with screening adherence.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer among U.S. men and women and the second deadliest. Effective screening modalities can either prevent CRC or find it earlier, but fewer than two thirds of U.S. adults are adherent to CRC screening guidelines. We tested whether people who defensively avoid CRC information have lower adherence to CRC screening recommendations and weaker intentions for being screened and whether CRC information avoidance adds predictive ability beyond known determinants of screening. Participants, aged 45-75 years, completed a survey about known structural determinants of CRC screening (healthcare coverage, healthcare use, provider recommendation), CRC information avoidance tendencies, and screening behavior (n = 887) and intentions (n = 425). Models were tested with multivariable regression and structural equation modeling (SEM). To the extent that participants avoided CRC information, they had lower odds of being adherent to CRC screening guidelines (OR = 0.55) and if non-adherent, less likely to intend to be screened (b=-0.50). In the SEM model, avoidance was negatively associated with each known structural determinant of screening and with lower screening adherence (ps < 0.01). Fit was significantly worse for nested SEM models when avoidance was not included, (i.e., the paths to avoidance were fixed to zero). Information avoidance was associated with screening behavior and other known structural determinants of screening adherence, potentially compounding its influence. Novel strategies are needed to reach avoiders, including health communication messaging that disrupts avoidance and interventions external to the healthcare system, with which avoiders are less engaged.

Reasons people avoid colorectal cancer information: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: With screening, colorectal cancer can be detected when treatable, or even prevented. However, approximately one in five people tend to avoid colorectal cancer information, and avoidance is associated with being less likely to have been screened for the disease. Crucial to developing strategies to reduce information avoidance, we sought a comprehensive understanding of reasons people avoid colorectal cancer information. METHODS AND MEASURES: In a mixed methods study, we surveyed 200 participants who varied with respect to avoidance and interviewed 15 people who tended to avoid colorectal cancer information (all aged 40-75) about reasons for avoiding. RESULTS: In both survey and interviews, primary reasons for information avoidance were: (1) shielding from anxiety and other aversive emotion, (2) perceived information sufficiency and (3) feelings of information overload. Trait anxiety, fear of diagnosis, anticipating negative interactions with healthcare, and negative associations with screening procedures exacerbated avoidance. Participants justified information non-relevance by attributing risk to other people's characteristics such as family history, gastrointestinal symptoms, being male, or living an unhealthy lifestyle. CONCLUSION: Novel findings include the triggering influence of trait anxiety and financial constraints on information avoidance. Also, information overload and incorrect understanding of risk factors may exacerbate perceptions of information sufficiency and avoidance.

Cannabis Advertising Policies in the United States: State-Level Variation and Comparison with Canada.

Objective: To assess the regulations on Cannabis advertising across U.S. states for variation and compare with Canadian federal policies, for the purpose of identifying opportunities to protect the public, especially the youth and other vulnerable populations, from health risks. Methods: We reviewed Health Canada's Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations to identify prohibited marketing and advertising activities for cannabis products. The Canadian guidelines (where cannabis is legal for both medical and nonmedical use) were compared with regulations in the 36 U.S. states where cannabis is legalized for medical and/or adult (e.g., recreational) use. Results: Cannabis advertising regulations vary greatly and have little consistency across the U.S. states. Most states do not address many of the cannabis advertising activities that are prohibited in Canada. Among the 31 states that do allow some form of cannabis advertising, 74% explicitly prohibit targeting or appealing to minors and 68% prohibit making false or misleading claims. There are 11 illegal advertising tactics in Canada, such as glamorization and testimonials, that were not specifically discussed in any of the U.S. state policies. Conclusion: The lack of consistent marketing guidelines could expose youth and vulnerable populations to cannabis advertisements; more widespread or federal guidance is needed.

Examining beliefs and information-seeking behaviors of young adults aged 20-39 to help inform cancer prevention communication.

Successfully reaching young adults with cancer early detection information is urgently important given the rising rates of cancer in this age group. We sought to describe to describe the 'when, who, where, what and how' of young adult cancer information seeking and how it differs from that of older participants. We analyzed information seeking and beliefs among young adult (aged 20-39 years) and middle aged and older (aged 40-75 years) respondents to the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 5, cycle 4 (N = 2784). A little less than half of young adults had searched for cancer information (44%), which was just as often as middle aged and older adults. Seeking cancer information was greater among young adults more worried about the disease (aOR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.86, p = .026). Like middle aged and older adults, young adults most often chose a doctor as their first choice for cancer information; however, they were more likely than their older counterparts to make the internet their first choice (38.9% vs. 28.5%, p = .013) and more frequently sought health information from YouTube (p = .010). They were more trusting of cancer information from government organizations than older adults (p = .019). Communicators may be able to better persuade young adults with early detection information framed around cherished values. Though respondents of all ages were most likely to choose protecting family as their top value, young adults valued happiness over safeguarding their health more than middle aged and older adults.

I don't know my child's asthma risk: evidence against satisficing as an explanation for 'don't know' responses.

Several studies suggest that "don't know" (DK) responses to risk perception items may represent meaningful expressions of uncertainty about disease risk. However, researchers are often discouraged from including a DK response option in survey items due to concerns about respondents overusing it to minimize cognitive effort-a phenomenon often referred to as satisficing. Our objective was to investigate whether patterns of DK responses to risk perception survey items were consistent with satisficing behavior. We conducted a secondary analysis of survey data from 814 parents and guardians (hereafter caregivers) of children with asthma. Caregivers answered 18 items assessing their perceived risk of their child experiencing two types of poor asthma outcomes: asthma exacerbation, and low asthma control. We examined differences in the frequency and distribution of DK responses across all 18 items and by type of risk perception item (i.e., 2 vs. 5 response options, absolute vs. comparative risk). We found that 32% (n=548) of respondents marked DK at least once. Of the 266 caregivers who provided any DK response, most did so for only 1 or 2 items (51.9%, n=138), and only 6% (n=15) answered DK to more than half of the items. Using random coefficient Poisson models, we found more DK responding for dichotomous absolute (30.1%) than ordinal absolute items (5.3%), b=1.72, p<.001. We also found fewer DK responses to the ordinal absolute items than the comparative items (8.2%), b=-0.49, p<.001. Using Chi-square tests, we found that inattentive responding was not associated with responding DK. Our findings suggest that satisficing is unlikely to completely explain DK responding to perceived risk survey items. Researchers who exclude DK response options from risk perception survey items may obtain an incomplete understanding of their study sample's beliefs about risk.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Prosocial Beliefs and Prevention Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Controlling the COVID-19 pandemic has required communities to engage in prosocial action, including behaviors that may inconvenience individuals, but protect the collective (e.g., mask wearing, social distancing). The purpose of this study was to understand to what extent COVID-19 prosocial beliefs and behavior differ by race/ethnicity and why this might be the case. A US nationally representative sample of 410 adults completed a survey about COVID-19 beliefs and prevention behaviors between June 12 and 18, 2020. Compared to White respondents, Black respondents perceived the risk of COVID-19 to be greater to the US population; and both Black and Latinx respondents thought it was more important to protect a variety of non-close others (e.g., people in their city or state). Black and Latinx respondents engaged in several prevention behaviors, including social distancing, to a greater extent than White respondents. There were indirect effects of Black vs. White race on engaging in protective behaviors through greater perceived risk to others and beliefs in the importance of protecting distal others. Results indicate that targeted messages promoting prevention, including vaccination with pro-social messages, may resonate with communities of color. They also suggest that lower levels of prosocial beliefs among White people have likely hindered the US response to the epidemic.