Exposure and Reactions to Cancer Treatment Misinformation and Advice: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment misinformation, or false claims about alternative cures, often spreads faster and farther than true information on social media. Cancer treatment misinformation can harm the psychosocial and physical health of individuals with cancer and their cancer care networks by causing distress and encouraging people to abandon support, potentially leading to deviations from evidence-based care. There is a pressing need to understand how cancer treatment misinformation is shared and uncover ways to reduce misinformation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to better understand exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation, including the willingness of study participants to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share Instagram posts with cancer treatment misinformation. METHODS: We conducted a survey on cancer treatment misinformation among US adults in December 2021. Participants reported their exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation generally (saw or heard, source, type of advice, and curiosity) and specifically on social media (platform, believability). Participants were then randomly assigned to view 1 of 3 cancer treatment misinformation posts or an information post and asked to report their willingness to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share. RESULTS: Among US adult participants (N=603; mean age 46, SD 18.83 years), including those with cancer and cancer caregivers, almost 1 in 4 (142/603, 23.5%) received advice about alternative ways to treat or cure cancer. Advice was primarily shared through family (39.4%) and friends (37.3%) for digestive (30.3%) and natural (14.1%) alternative cancer treatments, which generated curiosity among most recipients (106/142, 74.6%). More than half of participants (337/603, 55.9%) saw any cancer treatment misinformation on social media, with significantly higher exposure for those with cancer (53/109, 70.6%) than for those without cancer (89/494, 52.6%; P<.001). Participants saw cancer misinformation on Facebook (39.8%), YouTube (27%), Instagram (22.1%), and TikTok (14.1%), among other platforms. Participants (429/603, 71.1%) thought cancer treatment misinformation was true, at least sometimes, on social media. More than half (357/603, 59.2%) were likely to share any cancer misinformation posts shown. Many participants (412/603, 68.3%) were willing to prosocially intervene for any cancer misinformation posts, including flagging the cancer treatment misinformation posts as false (49.7%-51.4%) or reporting them to the platform (48.1%-51.4%). Among the participants, individuals with cancer and those who identified as Black or Hispanic reported greater willingness to intervene to reduce cancer misinformation but also higher intentions to share misinformation. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer treatment misinformation reaches US adults through social media, including on widely used platforms for support. Many believe that social media posts about alternative cancer treatment are true at least some of the time. The willingness of US adults, including those with cancer and members of susceptible populations, to prosocially intervene could initiate the necessary community action to reduce cancer treatment misinformation if coupled with strategies to help individuals discern false claims.

Social Media Use for Cancer Support Among Young Adults with Cancer.

Purpose: Social media can facilitate peer support among young adults with cancer; however, information is needed about what social media are used, by whom, and how to inform resource and intervention recommendations. Methods: In December 2021, we conducted an online survey with 396 young adults with cancer, ages 18-39, with any diagnosis ages 15-39. Participants reported their social media use to connect with other young adults with cancer, including frequency of use, type of support, and affect (positive to negative) when using to connect with cancer peers. Results: Participants were on average 31 years old (SD = 5.2), with an average age of 27 at diagnosis (63.4% male, 62.1% non-Hispanic White). Almost all (97.5%) reported using social media to connect with other young adults with cancer. Many (48.0%) used three or more social media platforms for cancer support, including Facebook (44.4%), YouTube (43.6%), Instagram (43.4%), Snapchat (36.9%), and Twitter (36.9%). Daily use for cancer support was common (32.9%-60.9%) among those who used social media, particularly among those who were younger; are not transgender; live in urban areas; or had brain, gynecologic, or testicular cancers. Across social media platforms, young adults with cancer reported seeking and sharing emotional support (88.9%), informational support (84.1%), and making connections (81.3%). Conclusion: Young adults with cancer use social media to connect with cancer peers for support. Commonly used existing social media (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, Instagram) should be prioritized in interventions to reach young adults who desire more age-appropriate resources to improve their psychosocial health.

Development of the UNC Perceived Message Effectiveness Scale for Youth.

PURPOSE: Tobacco prevention media campaigns are an important tool to address youth tobacco use. We developed a theory-based perceived message effectiveness (PME) Scale to use when vetting messages for campaigns. METHODS: Participants were a national sample of N=623 US adolescents (ages 13-17 years) recruited from a national probability-based panel. In an online experiment, we randomised adolescents to view tobacco prevention ads. All participants viewed an ad on smoking or vaping from the US Food and Drug Administration's The Real Cost campaign and a control video, in a random order. After ad exposure, we assessed PME using nine candidate items and constructs for convergent and criterion validity analyses. We used confirmatory factor analysis and examined information curves to select the scale items. RESULTS: A brief PME scale with three items (α=0.95) worked equally well for demographically diverse adolescents with different patterns of tobacco use. The Real Cost ads generated higher PME scores than the control videos for both vaping and smoking (convergent validity; p<0.05). Higher PME scores were associated with greater attention, fear, cognitive elaboration and anticipated social interactions (convergent validity; r=0.31-0.66), as well as more negative attitudes toward and lower susceptibility to vaping and smoking (criterion validity; r=-0.14 to -0.37). A single-item PME measure performed similarly to the three-item version. CONCLUSIONS: The University of North Carolina PME Scale for Youth is a reliable and valid measure of the potential effectiveness of vaping and smoking prevention ads. Employing PME scales during message development and selection may help youth tobacco prevention campaigns deploy more effective ads.

Are Social Media Interventions for Health Behavior Change Efficacious among Populations with Health Disparities?: A Meta-Analytic Review.

While prior reviews have identified positive effects of social media interventions for health behavior change generally, it is unclear whether these effects persist in traditionally underrepresented populations that are at disproportionate risk of disease. The current meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of social media interventions for health behavior change among populations with health disparities. We analyzed 17 studies with a cumulative N = 3,561. Social media interventions had a significant moderate-sized effect on behavior change among populations with health disparities (d = 0.303, 95% CI: 0.156, 0.460, p < .001), and there was significant heterogeneity across the studies (Q = 64.48, p < .001, I2 = 75.19). Exploratory moderator analyses revealed larger effects in studies with smaller sample size (p < .05) and those using additional intervention channels, including e-mail and telephone (p < .05). Findings suggest that social media interventions may be a promising intervention tool for stimulating behavior change among populations with health disparities, but several gaps remain in the literature. Public health professionals and other health communicators should further explore ways to increase both the reach and impact of social media interventions among populations with health disparities.

The Impact of The Real Cost Vaping and Smoking Ads across Tobacco Products.

INTRODUCTION: Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents (ages 13-17 years) from a probability-based panel. In a between-subjects experiment, we randomly assigned adolescents to view one of four videos online: (1) a smoking prevention video ad from the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) The Real Cost campaign, (2) a neutral control video about smoking, (3) a vaping prevention video ad from The Real Cost campaign, or (4) a neutral control video about vaping. We present effect sizes as Cohen's d, standardized mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads led to more negative attitudes toward vaping compared with control (d = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.53), while exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p-values > .05). Turning to spillover effects, exposure to The Real Cost smoking prevention ads led to less susceptibility to vaping (d = -0.34, 95% CI: -0.56, -0.12), more negative attitudes toward vaping (d = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.65) and higher perceived likelihood of harm from vaping (d = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.48), compared with control. Exposure to The Real Cost vaping prevention ads did not affect smoking-related outcomes compared with control (p-values > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This experiment found evidence of beneficial spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes and found no detrimental effects of vaping prevention ads on smoking outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: Little research has examined the spillover effects of tobacco communication campaigns, such as how anti-smoking ads affect vaping. Using a national sample of 623 U.S. adolescents, we found beneficial evidence of spillover effects of smoking prevention ads on vaping outcomes, which is promising since it suggests that smoking prevention campaigns may have the additional benefit of reducing both smoking and vaping among adolescents. Additionally, we found that vaping prevention campaigns did not elicit unintended consequences on smoking-related outcomes, an important finding given concerns that vaping prevention campaigns could drive youth to increase or switch to using combustible cigarettes instead of vaping.

Aided recall of The Real Cost e-cigarette prevention advertisements among a nationally representative sample of adolescents.

E-cigarette use among youth remains a significant public health concern. In 2018, The Real Cost campaign began disseminating messages about the harms of vaping, primarily using digital media. We sought to determine the prevalence of aided recall of The Real Cost e-cigarette prevention ads and identify potential differences by participant characteristics. Participants were a nationally representative sample of adolescents living in United States (US) households recruited by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago's AmeriSpeak panel in September and October of 2020. A total of 623 adolescents completed the survey. Analyses were weighted to represent the distribution of youth in the US, and effect sizes for individual characteristics were estimated using an adjusted marginalized two-part model. Seventy-one percent of adolescents recalled at least one of the five The Real Cost e-cigarette prevention ads, with individual ad recall ranging from a low of 38.8% (for Magic) to a high of 50.1% (for Narrative). Adjusted estimates of aided recall identified significantly higher recall among Black adolescents and those that used social media at medium or high frequencies (p < 0.05). Results support ongoing efforts by the FDA to reach youth with e-cigarette prevention messages using primarily digital media.

Adolescents' Understanding of Smoking and Vaping Risk Language: Cognitive Interviews to Inform Scale Development.

INTRODUCTION: Perceived message effectiveness (PME) is a common metric to understand receptivity to tobacco prevention messages, yet most measures have been developed with adults. We examined adolescents' interpretation of language within candidate items for a new youth-targeted PME measure using cognitive interviewing. We sought to understand the meaning adolescents assigned to our candidate PME items to improve item wording. AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were 20 adolescents, ages 13-17 years from the United States. Cognitive interviews used a structured guide to elicit feedback on comprehension, answer retrieval, and language regarding a set of Reasoned Action Approach-based survey items that assessed the PME of smoking and vaping prevention ads. We employed thematic analysis to synthesize findings from the interviews. RESULTS: Interviews identified three main issues related to survey items: ambiguity of language, word choice (risk and other terminology), and survey item phrasing. Adolescents preferred direct, definitive language over more ambiguous phrasing which they saw as less serious (eg, "will" instead of "could"). For risk terminology, they preferred terms such as "harmful" and "dangerous" over "risky," which was viewed as easy to discount. The term "negative effects" was interpreted as encompassing a broader set of tobacco harms than "health effects." Adolescents said that the term "vape" was preferable to "e-cigarette," and identified ways to simplify item wording for greater clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco risk terms that appear similar differ in meaning to adolescents, and more direct and unambiguous language is preferred. Our findings informed changes to the PME scale items to improve clarity and reduce measurement error. IMPLICATIONS: This study adds to the literature on how adolescents interpret tobacco prevention language. Adolescents may interpret terminology differently than adults, which could lead to ambiguity in meaning and thus measurement error. Through cognitive interviewing, we identified and improved the language in a youth-focused PME measure for tobacco and vaping prevention.

Adolescents and Young Adults Who Vape or Are Susceptible to Vaping: Characteristics, Product Preferences, and Beliefs.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined differences among current vapers, those susceptible to vaping, and those non-susceptible to vaping among adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in the U.S. We sought to understand vaping-related characteristics, preferences, and beliefs across these populations to inform prevention efforts. Methods: Participants were N=543 adolescents and N=557 young adults recruited in mid-2019 in the U.S. In two separate cross-sectional surveys, we assessed vaping preferences, tobacco product use, and both health harm and addiction risk beliefs about vaping. We ran separate multivariate logistic regressions to assess differences in risk beliefs across the three distinct e-cigarette groups among AYAs. Results: A majority of AYAs were either current vapers (adolescents: 32%, young adults: 36%) or susceptible to vaping (adolescents: 34%, young adults: 24%). In both samples, pod-based devices were the most common device type used, and fruit and mint/menthol were the most commonly used flavors. In multivariate analyses, adolescent (p<.05) and young adult (p<.05) current vapers both had lower risk beliefs about the health harms of vaping compared to those susceptible to vaping. Susceptible adolescents also had lower health harm risk beliefs compared to those who were non-susceptible (p<.05). Addiction risk beliefs seldom predicted use or susceptibility in multivariate analyses, with only susceptible young adults having lower addiction beliefs than those non-susceptible (p<.05). Conclusion: Results from this study highlight the role of health harm risk beliefs among AYA vapers and those susceptible to vaping. Prevention efforts should examine the most potent ways to communicate vaping health harms to discourage AYA vaping.

Motivations, barriers, and communication recommendations for promoting face coverings during the COVID-19 pandemic: Survey findings from a diverse sample.

State and local health departments have been tasked with promoting the use of face coverings to decrease the spread of COVID-19 in their respective communities. However, little is known about motivations and barriers to wearing face coverings in the context of COVID-19 prevention, particularly among communities of color who are at an increased risk of serious illness from the disease. The purpose of this study was to identify common motivations and barriers to face covering use, as well as explore perceptions of messages encouraging the use of face coverings among a racially and ethnically diverse sample. A survey was distributed electronically to North Carolina (NC) residents through NC Department of Health and Human Services listservs in July 2020. Participants self-categorized as Latino/a (33.5%), Black (39.1%), or white or another race (27.5%). The most commonly endorsed motivations for wearing face coverings were to avoid spreading COVID-19 (77%), as well as to protect people who are vulnerable (76%) and one's community (72%). Being uncomfortable (40%) was the most commonly endorsed barrier. Messages that included a clear request (ex. please wear a face covering) and a direct benefit (ex. keep community safe) were more commonly endorsed than those that did not. Commonly endorsed motivations, behaviors, and messages differed by race and ethnicity. Increased attention to message content, message structure, and access to information and resources may aid local officials in increasing consistent use of face coverings.

Motivations and Barriers for the Use of Face Coverings during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Messaging Insights from Focus Groups.

Widespread use of face coverings is a key public health strategy to prevent the spread of COVID-19. However, few studies have examined why Americans use or do not use face coverings, and little is known about the most effective messaging strategies. This study explored perceptions of face coverings, including motivations and barriers for use, and examined reactions to messaging promoting the use of face coverings. Six virtual focus groups were conducted with 34 North Carolina residents in July 2020. Participants reported high compliance with face covering recommendations but often did not wear them around family, friends, and colleagues. The most prevalent motivation for the use of face coverings was to protect or respect other people, including high-risk populations and individuals. Other motivators were self-protection, responsibility, desire for control, requirements, and expert advice. Barriers included physical and social discomfort, confusion or misinformation, low perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, and perceptions of identity and autonomy. Even among individuals who frequently wear face coverings, there are opportunities to improve compliance. Messaging should highlight how face coverings protect the wearer and others around them, normalize the use of face coverings in social settings, and emphasize requirements. Positive messages that focus on unity, personal experiences and the rationale for face coverings are recommended.

Use of Telephone and Digital Channels to Engage Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Adults in Health Disparities Research Within a Social Service Setting: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Engaging socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in health research is vital to understanding and, ultimately, eliminating health-related disparities. Digital communication channels are increasingly used to recruit study participants, and recent trends indicate a growing need to partner with the social service sector to improve population health. However, few studies have recruited participants from social service settings using multiple digital channels. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to recruit and survey 3791 adult clients of a social service organization via telephone and digital channels. This paper aimed to describe recruitment outcomes across five channels and compare participant characteristics by recruitment channel type. METHODS: The Cancer Communication Channels in Context Study recruited and surveyed adult clients of 2-1-1, a social service-focused information and referral system, using five channels: telephone, website, text message, web-based live chat, and email. Participants completed surveys administered either by phone (if recruited by phone) or on the web (if recruited from digital channels, ie, website, text message, Web-based live chat, or email). Measures for the current analysis included demographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 3293 participants were recruited, with 1907 recruited by phone and 1386 recruited from digital channels. Those recruited by phone had a moderate study eligibility rate (42.23%) and the highest survey completion rate (91.24%) of all channels. Individuals recruited by text message had a high study eligibility rate (94.14%) yet the lowest survey completion rate (74.0%) of all channels. Sample accrual goals were achieved for phone, text message, and website recruitment. Multivariable analyses found differences in participant characteristics by recruitment channel type. Compared with participants recruited by phone, those recruited from digital channels were younger (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.96, 95% CI 0.96-0.97) and more likely to be female (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.23-1.88), married (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.22-1.89), and other than non-Hispanic black (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.22-1.79). Those recruited via phone also were more likely to have more than a high school education (aOR 2.17, 95% CI 1.67-2.82), have a household income ≥US $25,000 a year (aOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.56-2.61), and have children living in the home (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.51). Additionally, participants recruited from digital channels were less likely than those recruited by phone to have public health insurance (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62-0.90) and more likely to report better overall health (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.27-1.83 for good-to-excellent health). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate the feasibility and utility of recruiting socioeconomically disadvantaged adults from the social service sector using multiple communication channels, including digital channels. As social service-based health research evolves, strategic recruitment using a combination of traditional and digital channels may be warranted to avoid underrepresentation of highly medically vulnerable individuals, which could exacerbate disparities in health.

Trust of Information about Tobacco and E-Cigarettes from Health Professionals versus Tobacco or Electronic Cigarette Companies: Differences by Subgroups and Implications for Tobacco Messaging.

Smoking behavior may be influenced by perceived trust of information from tobacco and e-cigarette companies about their products. The purpose of this study was to identify sociodemographic subgroups with more trust in tobacco product (tobacco and e-cigarette) companies than health professionals and explore associations between this relative trust and tobacco product use.Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 4, FDA Cycle) data were analyzed (N = 3,738). Two relative trust measures were developed identifying respondents who trust tobacco companies or e-cigarette companies as much as or more than health professionals for information about the health effects of tobacco products or e-cigarettes versus those who place more trust in health professionals. Dependent variables were smoking status (current, former, never) and e-cigarette use (ever, never). Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted in SAS 9.4 using jackknife replicate weights.Respondents who trusted tobacco or e-cigarette companies as much as or more than health professionals were disproportionately from racial/ethnic minority groups or had low levels of income or education (all p < 0.05). Relative trust was not associated with smoking status. After controlling for demographics, respondents who trusted e-cigarette companies as much as or more than health professionals had 87% greater odds (95% CI: 1.16, 3.00) of e-cigarette use, compared to respondents who placed higher trust in health professionals.Findings suggest that population subgroups with greater trust in e-cigarette companies relative to health professionals are more prone to e-cigarette use. Targeted communication strategies may be needed for underserved populations and to counter messaging from e-cigarette companies.

Impact of individual- and area-level race/ethnicity on illness intrusiveness among cancer survivors.

Many cancer survivors experience illness intrusion or disruption in various life domains from cancer. The socioecological model posits that individual health status is produced by the interaction of individual biology and their surrounding physical, social, and cultural environment. Despite evidence of the need to consider such hierarchical influences, little is known about the impact of area-level factors on cancer-related outcomes, including illness intrusiveness. Data from 993 breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer survivors within the first year of completing treatment were analyzed. Individual-level data for the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale were linked to census tract-level data to characterize neighborhood conditions. Logistic regression modeled the association between individual-level variables, neighborhood-level racial composition, and the interaction between individual and area-level race on illness intrusiveness. A significant number of survivors (232, 23.4%) reported relatively high illness intrusiveness (score >28). The model including the interaction between area- and individual-level race exhibited significantly improved model fit (p < .05). The final model showed that racial minorities living in areas with a higher percentage of racial minorities had higher odds of greater illness intrusion when compared to Whites living in areas with a low percentage of racial minorities (adjusted odds ratio: 1.65, confidence interval: 1.01, 2.68). Results suggest that area-level factors can have profound effects on survivors' processing of their past cancer experience. Findings may support the collective resources model which posits that the effect of area deprivation is greater in certain sociodemographic groups who may find it difficult to seek resources outside of their living area.