The Perceived Usability of Virtual Visits Among Black Adults' Receiving Oncology Care: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the COVID-19 pandemic came rapid uptake in virtual oncology care. During this, sociodemographic inequities in access to virtual visits (VVs) have become apparent. To better understand these issues, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the perceived usability and acceptability of VVs among Black adults diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Adults who self-identified as Black and had a diagnosis of prostate, multiple myeloma, or head and neck cancer were recruited from 2 academic medical centers, and their community affiliates to participate in a semi-structured interview, regardless of prior VV experience. A patient and family advisory board was formed to inform all components of the study. Interviews were conducted between September 2, 2021 and February 23, 2022. Transcripts were organized topically, and themes and subthemes were determined through iterative and interpretive immersion/crystallization cycles. RESULTS: Of the 49 adults interviewed, 29 (59%) had participated in at least one VV. Three overarching themes were derived: (1) VVs felt comfortable and convenient in the right contexts; (2) the technology required for VVs with video presented new challenges, which were often resolved by an audio-only telephone call; and (3) participants reported preferring in-person visits, citing concerns regarding gaps in nonverbal communication, trusting providers, and distractions during VV. CONCLUSION: While VVs were reported to be acceptable in specific circumstances, Black adults reported preferring in-person care, in part due to a perceived lack of interpersonal connectedness. Nonetheless, retaining reimbursement for audio-only options for VVs is essential to ensure equitable access for those with less technology savvy and/or limited device/internet capabilities.

Willingness to trade-off years of life for an HIV cure - an experimental exploration of affective forecasting.

BACKGROUND: In the US, 1.2 million people live with HIV (PWH). Despite having near-normal life expectancies due to antiretroviral therapy (ART), many PWH seek an HIV cure, even if it means risking their lives. This willingness to take risks for a cure raises questions about "affective forecasting biases," where people tend to overestimate the positive impact of future events on their well-being. We conducted a study to test two interventions to mitigate affective forecasting in the decisions of PWH about taking HIV cure medication. METHODS: We recruited PWH to complete a 30-minute survey about their current quality of life (QoL) and the QoL they anticipate after being cured of HIV, and assigned them to either no additional intervention, to one of two interventions intended to reduce affective forecasting bias, or to both interventions: (1) a defocusing intervention designed to broaden the number of life domains people consider when imagining life changes associated with new circumstances (e.g. HIV cure); and (2) an adaptation intervention to help them gauge fading of strong emotions over time. The study design included a 2 × 2 design: defocusing (yes/no) x adaptation (yes/no) intervention. We assessed PWH's willingness to take hypothetical HIV sterilizing cure medication using the Time Trade-Off (TTO) and their quality of life predictions with WHOQOL-HIV. RESULTS: 296 PWH participated. Counter to what we had hypothesized, neither intervention significantly reduced PWH's willingness to trade time for a cure. Instead, the defocusing intervention increased their willingness to trade time (IRR 1.77, p = 0.03). Exploratory analysis revealed that PWH with lower current quality of life who received the defocusing intervention were more willing to trade time for a cure. CONCLUSION: These negative findings suggest that either these biases are difficult to overcome in the settings of HIV curative medication or other factors beyond affective forecasting biases influence willingness to participate in HIV curative studies, such as respondents' current quality of life.

A web-based personalized decision support tool for patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ: development, content evaluation, and usability testing.

PURPOSE: Patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) face trade-offs when deciding among different treatments, including surgery, radiation, and endocrine therapy. A less chosen option is active monitoring. While evidence from clinical trials is not yet available, observational studies show comparable results for active monitoring and immediate treatment on cancer outcomes in select subgroups of patients. We developed and tested a web-based decision support tool (DST) to help patients explore current knowledge about DCIS and make an informed choice. METHODS: The DST, an interactive web application, was informed by literature reviews and formative work with patients, breast surgeons, and health communication experts. We conducted iterative interviews to evaluate the DST content among women with and without a history of breast cancer, as well as breast cancer experts. For usability testing, we conducted an online survey among women with and without a history of breast cancer. RESULTS: For content evaluation, 5 women with and 10 women without a history of DCIS were interviewed. The sample included 11 White and 4 non-White women, with a mean age of 64 years. The expert sample consisted of 5 attendings and a physician assistant. The feedback was used to add, clarify, or reorganize information in the DST. For usability testing, 22 participants with a mean age of 61 years were recruited including 15 White and 7 Black women and 6 women with a history of DCIS. The mean usability score was 3.7 out of 5. Most participants (86%) found that the DST provided unbiased information about treatments. To improve usability, we reduced the per-page content and added navigation cues. CONCLUSION: Content and usability evaluation showed that the DST helps patients explore trade-offs of active monitoring and immediate treatment. By adopting a personalized approach, the tool will enable informed decisions aligned with patients' values and expectations.

Gain-loss framing and patients' decisions: a linguistic examination of information framing in physician-patient conversations.

When discussing risks and benefits with cancer patients, physicians could focus on losses such as mortality rates and cancer recurrence or, alternatively, gains such as survival rates and curing cancer. Previous research has shown that the way health information is framed influences individuals' preferences and choices. We operationalized gain-loss framing as physicians' choice of words related to gains (cancer survival), or losses (cancer mortality). In an exploratory analysis, we investigated (a) whether physicians used gain or loss words as a function of their recommendation, (b) whether physicians' choice of words was associated with patients' treatment choices. We analyzed transcribed consultations with male patients who had intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Using an iterative process of gathering and evaluating words, we created gain- and loss-dictionaries. The loss-dictionary included words related to cancer death and cancer progression. The gain-dictionary included words related to survival and cure. Using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software, we calculated the number of words related to gains and losses in each transcript. We found that physicians who recommended immediate cancer treatment for prostate cancer (vs. active surveillance) used slightly fewer words related to losses and significantly fewer words related specifically to death from cancer. Further analysis showed that loss words were associated with the patient's choice of immediate cancer treatment. A novel method of automated text analysis showed that physicians' use of loss words was correlated with physicians' recommendations for cancer treatment versus active surveillance. Additionally, loss words in consultations were associated with patients' choice of cancer treatment.

"Cure" Versus "Clinical Remission": The Impact of a Medication Description on the Willingness of People Living with HIV to Take a Medication.

Many people living with HIV (PLWHIV) state that they would be willing to take significant risks to be "cured" of the virus. However, how they interpret the word "cure" in this context is not clear. We used a randomized survey to examine whether PLWHIV had a different willingness to take a hypothetical HIV medication if it causes flu-like symptoms, but provides: (a) cure, (b) remission that was labeled "cure", or (c) remission. PLWHIV (n = 454) were more willing to take a medication that provided a "cure" versus a "remission" if the side effects lasted less than 1 year. PLWHIV were more willing to take a medication that provided a remission that was labeled "cure" versus a "remission" (p = 0.01) if the side effects lasted 2 weeks. Clinicians and researchers should be aware of the impact of the word "cure" and ensure that PLWHIV fully understand the possible outcomes of their treatment options.

Trust of social media content and risk of making misinformed decisions: Survey of people affected by cancer and their caregivers.

Background: This study explores social media (SM) usage and trust in information among cancer patients and their caregivers. We compare socio-demographic characteristics to identify groups more likely to rely on social media for treatment decisions and those less inclined to validate social media information with their provider. Methods: A national survey of people diagnosed with cancer and those who were caregivers to people diagnosed with cancer was conducted via online survey in November-December 2021. Socio-demographic factors associated with respondents' use of SM and comfort disclosing SM use were assessed using logistic regression. Findings: Out of 262 respondents, 65% were likely to use SM to make decisions about lifestyle changes, cancer screening, vaccination, cancer treatment, medical testing, or choosing a provider. SM users were younger (ORadj = 0.11, p < 0.01), identified as Black (ORadj = 10.19, p < 0.01), and had less education (ORadj = 0.86, p = 0.02). Those with less education reported not being comfortable discussing SM with their providers (ORadj = 1.25, padj = 0.01). Discussion: Results contribute new understanding of the digital divide, highlighting the need for not only improving access to digital information but also the need for a supportive environment that provides patients with dependable methods to verify the authenticity of the information they encounter.

The feasibility and equity of text messaging to determine patient eligibility for lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Text messaging could be effective for determining patient eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS). We explored people's willingness to share their tobacco use history via text message among diverse groups. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: In 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey asking respondents about cellular phone usage, smoking habits, sociodemographic characteristics, and the likelihood of responding to a text message from their health care provider's office about tobacco use. We used χ² and analysis of variance tests for comparisons. RESULTS: Among 745 respondents, 90% used text messaging casually. Overall, 54% never smoked, 33% currently smoked, and 13% previously smoked. Six percent were LCS eligible, and 20% used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (dual users). Current smokers were significantly younger, less likely to be female, and more likely to use text messaging. LCS-eligible respondents were older and less likely to have a high income. Dual users were younger, less likely to report female gender and live in rural areas, and more likely to have a college education and high income. Most respondents (83%) indicated they were likely to respond to text message inquiries regarding smoking status. Middle-aged respondents (mean age, 37 years) were significantly more willing to report smoking status than younger or older respondents (91% vs 84% and 84%, respectively). Respondents with no college education (83% vs 88%) or with a low income vs a middle or high income (81% vs 86% and 88%, respectively) were significantly less willing to report smoking status via text messages. CONCLUSIONS: Text messaging showed promise for evaluating smoking history and for simplifying the process of identifying LCS-eligible individuals. However, achieving equity in identifying eligibility for LCS requires the implementation of multimodal strategies.

Health Information and Misinformation: A Framework to Guide Research and Practice.

When facing a health decision, people tend to seek and access web-based information and other resources. Unfortunately, this exposes them to a substantial volume of misinformation. Misinformation, when combined with growing public distrust of science and trust in alternative medicine, may motivate people to make suboptimal choices that lead to harmful health outcomes and threaten public safety. Identifying harmful misinformation is complicated. Current definitions of misinformation either have limited capacity to define harmful health misinformation inclusively or present a complex framework with information characteristics that users cannot easily evaluate. Building on previous taxonomies and definitions, we propose an information evaluation framework that focuses on defining different shapes and forms of harmful health misinformation. The framework aims to help health information users, including researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and lay individuals, to detect misinformation that threatens truly informed health decisions.

Preferences for Electronic Modes of Communication Among Older Primary Care Patients: Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Health information delivered via daily modes of communication such as email, text, or telephone reportedly supports improved health behavior and outcomes. While different modes of communication beyond clinical visits have proven successful for patient outcomes, preferences for communication modes have not been comprehensively studied among older primary care patients. We addressed this gap by assessing patient preferences for receiving cancer screening and other information from their doctors' offices. OBJECTIVE: We explored stated preferences by communication modes through the lens of social determinants of health (SDOH) to gauge acceptability and equity implications for future interventions. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to primary care patients aged 45-75 years, in 2020-2021, which assessed respondents' use of telephones, computers, or tablets in daily life and their preferred modes of communication for different types of health information, including educational materials about cancer screening, tips for taking prescription medication, and protection from respiratory diseases from their doctors' offices. Respondents indicated their willingness to receive messages from their doctors' offices via each of the provided modes of communication, including telephone, text, email, patient portals, websites, and social media, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "unwilling" to "willing." We present the percentage of respondents who indicated that they were "willing" to receive information via specific electronic mode. Chi-square tests were used to compare participants' willingness by social characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 133 people completed the survey (response rate 27%). The average respondent age was 64 years, 82 (63%) respondents were female, 106 (83%) were White, 20 (16%) were Black, and 1 (1%) was Asian. In total, 75 (58%) respondents had a bachelor's degree or higher; 26 (20%) resided in rural areas, 37 (29%) in suburban areas, 50 (39%) in a town, and 15 (12%) in a city. The majority, 73 (57%), reported being comfortable with their income. Preferences of respondents for electronic communication about cancer screening were distributed as follows: 100 (75%) respondents were willing to receive information from their doctor's office via their patient portal, 98 (74%) via email, 75 (56%) via text, 60 (45%) via the hospital website, 50 (38%) via telephone, and 14 (11%) via social media. About 6 (5%) respondents were unwilling to receive any communication via electronic modes. Preferences were distributed similarly for other types of information. Respondents reporting lesser income and education consistently preferred receiving telephone calls relative to other communication modes. CONCLUSIONS: To optimize health communication and reach a socioeconomically diverse population, telephone calls should be added to electronic communication, especially for people with less income and education. Further research needs to identify the underlying reasons for the observed differences and how best to ensure that socioeconomically diverse groups of older adults can access reliable health information and health care services.

Association of quantitative information and patient knowledge about prostate cancer outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: When the volume or complexity of health information exceeds the capacity to process it, patients may misinterpret or ignore critical information. Numerical information is especially challenging to process for many patients, yet no empirical data shows whether numerical information influences how well they could process and recall it. METHOD: Using natural language processing tools, we estimated the amount of numerical and probability-related (quantitative) information that was provided in 112 paired urology-radiology clinical consultations with patients who had been recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. The primary outcome measured was patient knowledge about their prostate cancer outcomes assessed before and after the consultations. RESULTS: Patients with prostate cancer, Gleason score 6 or 7, and stage Time 1 or Time 2 participated in the study. Paired consultations included on average 11,086 words spoken. The relationship between quantitative information provided in consultations and patient knowledge about their cancer outcomes followed an inverted U-shape. There was a positive association between quantitative information and patient knowledge about their cancer outcomes. However, after the amount of quantitative information exceeded 4% (422 quantitative words) in paired consultations, the relationships between knowledge and the number of quantitative words became negative. Individual differences in education were not associated with observed relationships. CONCLUSION: Despite concerns about patients' capacity to process quantitative information, we found that patients' knowledge about cancer risks is positively associated with a certain amount of quantitative information. In the consultations, patients need to receive quantitative information that is well balanced with qualitative explanations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).