Countering Antivax Misinformation via Social Media: Message-Testing Randomized Experiment for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Uptake.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal adolescent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates have been attributed to parental perceptions of the HPV vaccine. The internet has been cited as a setting where misinformation and controversy about HPV vaccination have been amplified. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to test message effectiveness in changing parents' attitudes and behavioral intentions toward HPV vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a web-based message-testing experiment with 6 control messages and 25 experimental messages and 5 from each of the 5 salient themes about HPV vaccination (theme 1: safety, side effects, risk, and ingredient concerns and long-term or major adverse events; theme 2: distrust of the health care system; theme 3: HPV vaccine effectiveness concerns; theme 4: connection to sexual activity; and theme 5: misinformation about HPV or HPV vaccine). Themes were identified from previous web-based focus group research with parents, and specific messages were developed by the study team using content from credible scientific sources. Through an iterative process of message development, the messages were crafted to be appropriate for presentation on a social media platform. Among the 1713 participants recruited via social media and crowdsourcing sites, 1043 eligible parents completed a pretest survey questionnaire. Participants were then randomly assigned to 1 of the 31 messages and asked to complete a posttest survey questionnaire that assessed attitudes toward the vaccine and perceived effectiveness of the viewed message. A subgroup of participants (189/995, 19%) with unvaccinated children aged 9 to 14 years was also assessed for their behavioral intention to vaccinate their children against HPV. RESULTS: Parents in the experimental group had increased positive attitudes toward HPV vaccination compared with those in the control group (t969=3.03, P=.003), which was associated with increased intention to vaccinate among parents of unvaccinated children aged 9 to 14 years (r=1.14, P=.05). At the thematic level, we identified 4 themes (themes 2-5) that were relatively effective in increasing behavioral intentions by positively influencing attitudes toward the HPV vaccine (χ25=5.97, P=.31, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.014, comparative fit index [CFI]=0.91, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]=0.031). On the message level, messages that provided scientific evidence from government-related sources (eg, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and corrected misinformation (eg, "vaccines like the HPV vaccine are simply a way for pharmaceutical companies to make money. That isn't true") were effective in forming positive perceptions toward the HPV vaccination messages. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based messages directly countering misinformation and promoting HPV vaccination in social media environments can positively influence parents' attitudes and behavioral intentions to vaccinate their children against HPV.

Measurement of external food cue responsiveness in preschool-age children: Preliminary evidence for the use of the external food cue responsiveness scale.

BACKGROUND: Conditioned eating in response to external food cues may contribute to obesity risk in young children. OBJECTIVES: To develop a brief, parent-reported scale to measure external food cue responsiveness for preschool-age children. METHODS: Focus groups with parents of preschool-age children were conducted to create an initial pool of items reflecting children's behavioral responses to external food cues. Items were included in a nationally-distributed online survey of parents of preschool-age children (n = 456). Factor analysis was used to reduce the initial item pool, the scale's psychometric properties were assessed, and scores were correlated with reported snacking behaviors. RESULTS: Nine items met inclusion criteria in the final scale, which had high internal consistency (alpha = 0.86). Final scores were the mean across the nine items. External food cue responsiveness was greater among children with, versus without, usual TV advertisement exposure. Furthermore, greater external food cue responsiveness mediated the relationship between children's usual TV advertisement exposure and snacking during TV viewing. Findings remained statistically significant when adjusted for food responsiveness as measured with the Child Eating Behavior Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide preliminary evidence that external food cue responsiveness is measurable by parental report in preschool-age children.

Development of the Rural Perception Scale (RPS-18).

BACKGROUND: People living in rural areas often experience limited access to health resources, slow knowledge diffusion, and geographical isolation, and tend to be at higher risk for poor physical and mental health outcomes compared with nonrural populations. It is unclear, yet, how the concept of "rural" shapes observed differences from nonrural populations. We aim to develop a psychometrically sound scale to assess key dimensions that constitute individual-level perceived rurality. METHODS: We first conducted a broad literature review to identify a priori concepts related to rurality and adapted survey items measuring relevant constructs, such as loneliness, attitudes toward people living in rural areas, and perceived social membership. We used these conceptual constructs and measures to develop a survey questionnaire focused on rural perceptions. We recruit residents in 3 rural states: Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Using the explorative factor analysis and second-order measurement model in the structural equation model framework, we developed a rural perception scale consisting of 18 items. RESULTS: We recruited 1,384 participants (n = 686 from KY; n = 698 from NH/VT) using Amazon Mechanical Turk (n = 897, 64.8%) and social media paid ads (n = 487, 35.2%). The average age of participants was 41 years old (SD = 15); 54.7% of respondents had less than college graduate education, and 94.2% reported their race as non-Hispanic White. Majority of the participants were from Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA)-designated urban areas (n = 798, 57.7%), followed by RUCA-designated large rural areas (257, 18.6%), RUCA-designated rural areas (n = 174, 12.6%) and RUCA-designated isolated areas (n = 133, 9.6%). Our final model revealed 4 latent constructs: "belonging" (Cronbach's α = 0.896), "attitudes toward rural life" (Cronbach's α = 0.807), "loneliness" (Cronbach's α = 0.898), and "community social ties to people in their community" (Cronbach's α = 0.846). CONCLUSIONS: We identified 4 subfactors of the umbrella concept of rurality that explain how people in rural regions may perceive being in rural environments and having rural lifestyles.

Strategies to support cancer survivors at work: content analysis of cancer survivor, healthcare provider, and employer perspectives.

PURPOSE: To (1) describe the challenges identified by cancer survivors, healthcare providers, and employers related to work maintenance and optimization during and after cancer treatment and (2) identify strategies that can address those challenges. METHODS: We conducted content analysis of semi-structured interview data collected from cancer survivors, healthcare providers, and employers regarding workplace challenges that cancer survivors face and strategies to address them. Challenges and strategies were summarized according to whether they related to the cancer survivor, the work demands, or the work environment. RESULTS: Forty-five total participants identified challenges and strategies primarily related to the cancer survivor's signs and symptoms of treatment. Healthcare providers (n = 17) focused primarily on challenges and strategies related to the cancer survivor, while employers (n = 5) focused on the work environment-especially policies and procedures that facilitate time off work and the importance of bidirectional communication between cancer survivors and employers. Cancer survivors (n = 23) identified challenges and suggestions in all three categories, though they uniquely focused on challenges relating to work demands and adjustments to those demands that would facilitate employment maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to address the many challenges that cancer survivors experience at work should include the views of cancer survivors, healthcare providers, and employers reflecting their respective domains of expertise in work demands, cancer survivors' medical care, and the work environment. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Survivors and healthcare providers are able to address many side effects that can create work challenges, but improved collaboration between survivors and employers may identify ways to modify work demands and environments to maximize employment maintenance.

Exploring Acceptability of Employment Interventions to Support People Living With Cancer: Qualitative Study of Cancer Survivors, Health Care Providers, and Employers.

BACKGROUND: Employment contributes to cancer survivors' quality of life, but this population faces a variety of challenges when working during and after treatment. Factors associated with work outcomes among cancer survivors include disease and treatment status, work environment, and social support. While effective employment interventions have been developed in other clinical contexts, existing interventions have demonstrated inconsistent effectiveness in supporting cancer survivors at work. We conducted this study as a preliminary step toward program development for employment support among survivors at a rural comprehensive cancer center. OBJECTIVE: We aimed (1) to identify supports and resources that stakeholders (cancer survivors, health care providers, and employers) suggest may help cancer survivors to maintain employment and (2) to describe stakeholders' views on the advantages and disadvantages of intervention delivery models that incorporate those supports and resources. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study collecting qualitative data from individual interviews and focus groups. Participants included adult cancer survivors, health care providers, and employers living or working in the Vermont-New Hampshire catchment area of the Dartmouth Cancer Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire. We grouped interview participants' recommended supports and resources into 4 intervention delivery models, which ranged on a continuum from less to more intensive to deliver. We then asked focus group participants to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of the 4 delivery models. RESULTS: Interview participants (n=45) included 23 cancer survivors, 17 health care providers, and 5 employers. Focus group participants (n=12) included 6 cancer survivors, 4 health care providers, and 2 employers. The four delivery models were (1) provision of educational materials, (2) individual consultation with cancer survivors, (3) joint consultation with both cancer survivors and their employers, and (4) peer support or advisory groups. Each participant type acknowledged the value of providing educational materials, which could be crafted to improve accommodation-related interactions between survivors and employers. Participants saw usefulness in individual consultation but expressed concern about the costs of program delivery and potential mismatches between consultant recommendations and the limits of what employers can provide. For joint consultation, employers liked being part of the solution and the possibility of enhanced communication. Potential drawbacks included additional logistical burden and its perceived generalizability to all types of workers and workplaces. Survivors and health care providers viewed the efficiency and potency of peer support as benefits of a peer advisory group but acknowledged the sensitivity of financial topics as a possible disadvantage of addressing work challenges in a group setting. CONCLUSIONS: The 3 participant groups identified both common and unique advantages and disadvantages of the 4 delivery models, reflecting varied barriers and facilitators to their potential implementation in practice. Theory-driven strategies to address implementation barriers should play a central role in further intervention development.

A Survey of Cancer Risk Behaviors, Beliefs, and Social Drivers of Health in New Hampshire and Vermont.

Compared with urban areas, rural areas have higher cancer mortality and have experienced substantially smaller declines in cancer incidence in recent years. In a New Hampshire (NH) and Vermont (VT) survey, we explored the roles of rurality and educational attainment on cancer risk behaviors, beliefs, and other social drivers of health. In February-March 2022, two survey panels in NH and VT were sent an online questionnaire. Responses were analyzed by rurality and educational attainment. Respondents (N = 1,717, 22%) mostly lived in rural areas (55%); 45% of rural and 25% of urban residents had high school education or less and this difference was statistically significant. After adjustment for rurality, lower educational attainment was associated with smoking, difficulty paying for basic necessities, greater financial difficulty during the COVID-19 pandemic, struggling to pay for gas (P < 0.01), fatalistic attitudes toward cancer prevention, and susceptibility to information overload about cancer prevention. Among the 33% of respondents who delayed getting medical care in the past year, this was more often due to lack of transportation in those with lower educational attainment (21% vs. 3%, P = 0.02 adjusted for rurality) and more often due to concerns about catching COVID-19 among urban than rural residents (52% vs. 21%; P < 0.001 adjusted for education). In conclusion, in NH/VT, smoking, financial hardship, and beliefs about cancer prevention are independently associated with lower educational attainment but not rural residence. These findings have implications for the design of interventions to address cancer risk in rural areas. Significance: In NH and VT, the finding that some associations between cancer risk factors and rural residence are more closely tied to educational attainment than rurality suggest that the design of interventions to address cancer risk should take educational attainment into account.

Community Outreach and Engagement at U.S. Cancer Centers: Notes from the Third Cancer Center Community Impact Forum.

Community outreach and engagement (COE) is a fundamental activity of cancer centers as they aim to reduce cancer disparities in their geographic catchment areas. As part of COE, NCI-Designated Cancer Centers must monitor the burden of cancer in their catchment area, implement and evaluate evidence-based strategies, stimulate catchment area relevant research, support clinical trial enrollment, and participate in policy and advocacy initiatives, in addition to other responsibilities. The Cancer Center Community Impact Forum (CCCIF) is a national annual meeting of COE professionals who work at or with cancer centers across the country. CCCIF grew out of earlier discussions at American Society of Preventive Oncology (ASPO) annual meetings, where COE was often discussed, but not exclusively. The third annual CCCIF meeting-hosted by the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University-was held in June 2022 in Philadelphia, PA, where more than 200 participants listened to dynamic presentations across 12 COE-related panel sessions. CCCIF leadership and ASPO AD/PL Workshop Planners worked together on the agenda. The 12 sessions used a COE lens to focus on: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Policy; State Cancer Coalitions; Evaluation and Metrics; Implementation Science; In-reach; Outreach; Training and Education; Funding, Personnel and Resources; Clinical Trials; Innovative Methods; and Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. This article is a summary of main points and key lessons from each session, as well as a summary of overarching themes that were evident across the sessions.

"The Last Thing You Have to Worry About": A Thematic Analysis of Employment Challenges Faced by Cancer Survivors.

The evidence base for interventions that support the employment goals of cancer survivors is growing but inconclusive. As the first step in initiating a community-engaged program of research aimed at developing and testing interventions to support the employment goals of cancer survivors, 23 cancer survivors, 17 healthcare providers, and 5 employers participated in individual interviews to elicit perceptions regarding local challenges and resources related to work maintenance and optimization within the context of cancer treatment. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify cross-cutting experiences that were voiced by all three types of participants. Three themes were found in the data: (1) the onus for identifying and articulating work-related issues is upon the cancer survivor; (2) the main support offered to cancer survivors involved time away from work and flexibility with scheduling work and treatment activities; and (3) participants voiced a lack of information regarding one or more aspects related to supporting employment goals of cancer survivors. Supportive resources designed for cancer survivors, employers, and/or healthcare providers are needed to help cancer survivors optimize their employment situations.

Barriers, Facilitators, and Suggested Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening Among a Rural Screening-Eligible Population.

Introduction: Rural areas are disproportionally affected by lung cancer late-stage incidence and mortality. Lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended to find lung cancer early and reduce mortality, yet uptake is low. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the barriers to, facilitators of, and suggested interventions for increasing LCS among a rural screening-eligible population using a mixed methods concurrent embedded design study. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from rural-residing adults who met the eligibility criteria for LCS but who were not up-to-date with LCS recommendations. Study participants (n = 23) took part in 1 of 5 focus groups and completed a survey. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded through a mixed deductive and inductive approach. Survey data were used to enhance and clarify focus group results; these data were integrated in the design and during analysis, in accordance with the mixed methods concurrent embedded design approach. Results: Several key barriers to LCS were identified, including an overall lack of knowledge about LCS, not receiving information or recommendation from a health care provider, and lack of transportation. Key facilitators were receiving a provider recommendation and high motivation to know the screening results. Participants suggested that LCS uptake could be increased by addressing provider understanding and recommendation of LCS and conducting community outreach to promote LCS awareness and access. Conclusion: The results suggest that the rural screening-eligible population is generally receptive to LCS. Patient-level factors important to getting this population screened include knowledge, transportation, motivation to know their screening results, and receiving information or recommendation from a provider. Addressing these factors may be important to increase rural LCS uptake.