Advancing multi-level health communication research: A Delphi study on barriers and opportunities.

Adopting a multi-level perspective that considers the many interrelated contexts influencing health could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. However, despite increasing interest in the use of multi-level approaches, multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions are infrequently utilized. We therefore sought to conduct a modified Delphi study to better understand how researchers conceptualize MLHC interventions and identify opportunities for advancing MLHC work. Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about the characteristics, benefits, pitfalls, best practices, barriers, and facilitators of MLHC interventions; the role of technology in facilitating MLHC interventions; and ways to advance MLHC intervention research (46 experts completed the first survey, 44 completed both surveys). Survey data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Panelists reached consensus on two components of the proposed definition of MLHC interventions and also put forward a set of best practices for these interventions. Panelists felt that most health intervention research could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offered certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized the potential for technology to exacerbate disparities. Finally, panelists prioritized a set of methodological advances and practical supports that would be needed to facilitate future MLHC intervention research. The results of this study point to several future directions for the field, including advancing how interactions between levels are assessed, increasing the empirical evidence base demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identifying best practices for the use of technology. The findings also suggest that researchers may need additional support to overcome the perceived practical challenges of conducting MLHC interventions.

BACKGROUND: Considering the factors that affect health across multiple levels (e.g., individual, family, community, and policy) could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. The goal of this study was to better understand how researchers characterize multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions and to identify opportunities for advancing work in this area. METHODS: Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about MLHC interventions. RESULTS: Panelists reported that most health communication interventions could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offer certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized that the use of technology could have unintended consequences. Using input from the panel of experts recruited for the study, we propose a working definition of MLHC interventions and a set of best practices for conducting these types of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the need to improve methods, conduct additional research demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identify how technology can best be used to support these interventions.

Communication research at the National Cancer Institute, 2013-2019: a grant portfolio analysis.

PURPOSE: To analyze communication-focused grants funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) between fiscal years 2013 and 2019 to provide insight into the characteristics of funded projects and identify promising areas for future research. METHODS: iSearch, a portfolio analysis tool, was queried to identify communication-related grants funded by NCI. Abstracts and specific aims were coded for key study characteristics. 344 unique competing grants with a substantial communication component were included in the final analysis. SAS version 9.4 was used to calculate code frequencies. RESULTS: Most communication grants focused on cancer prevention (n = 197), with fewer targeting diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, or end-of-life. Tobacco product use was the most frequently addressed topic (n = 128). Most grants targeted or measured outcomes at the individual (n = 332) or interpersonal level (n = 127). Cancer patients/survivors (n = 101) and healthcare providers (n = 63) were often the population of focus, while caregivers or those at increased risk for cancer received less attention. Studies were often based in healthcare settings (n = 125); few studies were based in schools or worksites. Many grants employed randomized controlled trials (n = 168), but more novel methods, like optimization trials, were uncommon. CONCLUSION: NCI's support of health communication research covers a diverse array of topics, populations, and methods. However, the current analysis also points to several promising opportunities for future research, including efforts focused on communication at later stages of the cancer control continuum and at multiple levels of influence, as well as studies that take advantage of a greater diversity of settings and leverage novel methodological approaches.

Smoke-free and tobacco-free colleges and universities in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the number and proportion of accredited, degree-granting institutions with 100% smoke-free and 100% tobacco-free protections across the USA and by state. METHODS: Data on postsecondary education institutions from the US Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 2015, and smoke-free and tobacco-free campus protections from the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation's Smokefree and Tobacco-Free Colleges and Universities List 2017, were integrated to calculate the number and proportion of: (1) smoke-free and tobacco-free accredited, degree-granting institutions and (2) students and staff protected by campus policies and state laws. Campus protections are given a 100% smoke-free designation if smoking is not allowed on campus anywhere, at any time; 100% tobacco-free designations extend smoke-free protections to include non-combustible products such as smokeless tobacco. RESULTS: 823 accredited, degree-granting institutions (16.7%) representing 1816 individual campuses, sites and schools have either 100% smoke-free or 100% tobacco-free protections. An estimated 14.9 million college students (26.9%) and 8.9 million faculty and staff (25.4%) are protected by campus policies and state laws. Only three states and two territories have 100% smoke-free or 100% tobacco-free protections in over half of their institutions; four states and six territories have no known 100% smoke-free or 100% tobacco-free campus protections. CONCLUSIONS: In 2017, just 16.7% of accredited, degree-granting institutions in the USA had 100% smoke-free or 100% tobacco-free protections. Despite progress, more efforts can ensure that students and staff benefit from comprehensive 100% smoke-free and 100% tobacco-free protections at US colleges and universities.

Americans' Trust in Health Information Sources: Trends and Sociodemographic Predictors.

PURPOSE: To assess the public's trust in health information sources (ie, government health agencies, doctors, family/friends, charitable organizations, and religious leaders/organizations) from 2005 to 2015 and identify sociodemographics factors associated with high trust. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Health Information National Trends Survey, a US nationally representative publicly available data on health-related knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes. PARTICIPANTS: Data included 5 iterations (2005-2015) of US adults (2005: N = 5586, 2008: N = 7764, 2011: N = 3959, 2013: N = 3185, and 2015: N = 3738). MEASURES: Outcome variables were high trust in health information sources and independent variables were sociodemographics. ANALYSIS: A descriptive analysis was conducted to track changes in trust over the past decade. The χ2 and multivariable logistic regression were conducted to assess sociodemographic associations in 2015. RESULTS: Trust in health information across all sources remained stable from 2005 to 2015. Doctors were the most trusted source, followed by government health agencies. Sociodemographics were independently associated with trust. For example, non-Hispanic blacks were more likely to trust charitable organizations (odds ratio [OR] = 2.32, confidence interval [CI] = 1.42-3.79) and religious leaders/organizations (OR = 3.57, CI = 1.20-10.57) compared to non-Hispanic whites. In addition, those with less than high school education (OR = 2.44, CI = 1.32-4.52) were more likely than college graduates to report trust in religious leaders/organizations. CONCLUSION: Although there are analytic limitations to the specific time periods, the findings demonstrate that public health communication practitioners must consider the role of source credibility among priority populations when disseminating and promoting information.

Cancer Symptom Recognition and Anticipated Delays in Seeking Care Among U.S. Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Early stage diagnosis strongly predicts cancer survival. Recognition of potential symptoms of cancer may improve survival by reducing time to seeking care. METHODS: Telephone interviews with a population-representative sample of English-speaking adults (aged ≥50 years) in the U.S. (N=1,425) were conducted in 2014 using an instrument adapted from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer survey. Anticipated time to seeking care for four cancer symptoms (persistent cough, rectal bleeding, mole changes, and breast changes) was assessed, and delay was defined as waiting >2 weeks. Recognition of symptoms as potential cancer signs was assessed dichotomously. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess associations between symptom recognition and anticipated delay, adjusting for demographics, cancer experience, self-reported health, and healthcare access. Analyses were weighted and conducted in 2017. RESULTS: Symptom recognition varied but was relatively high across all symptoms (76.9%-95.5%). Anticipated delay varied by symptom and was highest for persistent cough (41.2%) and lowest for rectal bleeding (9.1%). For rectal bleeding (AOR=2.65, 95% CI=1.31, 5.36) and mole changes (AOR=3.30, 95% CI=1.48, 7.33), anticipated delay was more likely among individuals who did not recognize the symptom as a warning sign. Adults with lower education levels (p<0.05) and African Americans (p<0.05) were less likely to delay for some symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of symptom recognition was associated with anticipated delay in seeking care for some cancer symptoms. Differences in recognition and delays by symptom could be driven partly by screening messaging or by ambiguity and functional impact of each symptom.

Population Health Assessment in NCI-Designated Cancer Center Catchment Areas.

In May 2016, the NCI announced supplemental funding for NCI-Designated Cancer Centers to conduct research to better characterize populations within cancer center catchment areas. The initiative was intended to support primary data collection efforts to better define and describe cancer center catchment areas using a multilevel population health framework. The long-term goal was to facilitate collaborations in which researchers, providers, public health practitioners, and nonprofit organizations could utilize the data to develop or expand applied cancer control research, planning, and implementation, with an emphasis on local health disparities and communication inequalities. This CEBP Focus issue on "Population Health Assessment in Cancer Center Catchment Areas" highlights the results from those catchment area data collection efforts. Articles highlight research from surveys conducted to define and describe cancer center catchment areas using both probability and nonprobability designs and a variety of sampling techniques, survey modes, and data linkages. Some articles report pooled analyses of data collected by multiple cancer centers to highlight local versus national comparisons based on standardized behavioral and demographic measures. Others examine rural-urban differences in measures relevant to cancer prevention and control. The studies published in this Focus will provide the field with a myriad of methodologic approaches for defining and describing cancer center catchment areas.

Differences in Access to and Use of Electronic Personal Health Information Between Rural and Urban Residents in the United States.

PURPOSE: The increase in use of health information technologies (HIT) presents new opportunities for patient engagement and self-management. Patients in rural areas stand to benefit especially from increased access to health care tools and electronic communication with providers. We assessed the adoption of 4 HIT tools over time by rural or urban residency. METHODS: Analyses were conducted using data from 7 iterations of the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS; 2003-2014). Rural/urban residency was based on the USDA's 2003 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Outcomes of interest included managing personal health information online; whether providers maintain electronic health records (EHRs); e-mailing health care providers; and purchasing medicine online. Bivariate analyses and logistic regression were used to assess relationships between geography and outcomes, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. FINDINGS: In total, 6,043 (17.6%, weighted) of the 33,749 respondents across the 7 administrations of HINTS lived in rural areas. Rural participants were less likely to report regular access to Internet (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.61-0.80). Rural respondents were neither more nor less likely to report that their health care providers maintained EHRs than were urban respondents; however, they had decreased odds of managing personal health information online (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.40-0.78) and e-mailing health care providers (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.49-0.77). CONCLUSIONS: The digital divide between rural and urban residents extends to HIT. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether the decreased use of HIT may be due to lack of Internet connectivity or awareness of these tools.

Making the Case for Investment in Rural Cancer Control: An Analysis of Rural Cancer Incidence, Mortality, and Funding Trends.

Estimates of those living in rural counties vary from 46.2 to 59 million, or 14% to 19% of the U.S. POPULATION: Rural communities face disadvantages compared with urban areas, including higher poverty, lower educational attainment, and lack of access to health services. We aimed to demonstrate rural-urban disparities in cancer and to examine NCI-funded cancer control grants focused on rural populations. Estimates of 5-year cancer incidence and mortality from 2009 to 2013 were generated for counties at each level of the rural-urban continuum and for metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan counties, for all cancers combined and several individual cancer types. We also examined the number and foci of rural cancer control grants funded by NCI from 2011 to 2016. Cancer incidence was 447 cases per 100,000 in metropolitan counties and 460 per 100,000 in nonmetropolitan counties (P < 0.001). Cancer mortality rates were 166 per 100,000 in metropolitan counties and 182 per 100,000 in nonmetropolitan counties (P < 0.001). Higher incidence and mortality in rural areas were observed for cervical, colorectal, kidney, lung, melanoma, and oropharyngeal cancers. There were 48 R- and 3 P-mechanism rural-focused grants funded from 2011 to 2016 (3% of 1,655). Further investment is needed to disentangle the effects of individual-level SES and area-level factors to understand observed effects of rurality on cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(7); 992-7. ©2017 AACR.

Use of E-Cigarettes Among Current Smokers: Associations Among Reasons for Use, Quit Intentions, and Current Tobacco Use.

INTRODUCTION: Research has documented growing availability and use of e-cigarettes in the United States over the last decade. METHODS: We conducted a national panel survey of current adult cigarette smokers to assess attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors relating to e-cigarette use in the United States (N = 2,254). RESULTS: Among current cigarette smokers, 20.4% reported current use of e-cigarettes on some days and 3.7% reported daily use. Reported reasons for e-cigarette use included: quit smoking (58.4%), reduce smoking (57.9%), and reduce health risks (51.9%). No significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics between e-cigarette users and nonusers were observed. Prior quit attempts were reported more frequently among e-cigarette users (82.8%) than nonusers (74.0%). Intention to quit was reported more frequently among e-cigarette users (64.7%) than nonusers (46.8%). Smokers intending to quit were more likely to be e-cigarette users than those not intending to quit (odds ratio [OR] = 1.90, CI =1.36-2.65). Those who used e-cigarettes to try to quit smoking (OR = 2.25, CI = 1.25-4.05), reduce stress (OR = 3.66, CI = 1.11-12.09), or because they cost less (OR = 3.42, CI = 1.64-7.13) were more likely to report decreases in cigarette smoking than those who did not indicate these reasons. Smokers who reported using e-cigarettes to quit smoking (OR = 16.25, CI = 8.32-31.74) or reduce stress (OR = 4.30, CI = 1.32-14.09) were significantly more likely to report an intention to quit than those who did not indicate those reasons for using e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a quarter of smokers in our study reported e-cigarettes use, primarily motivated by intentions to quit or reduce smoking. These findings identify a clinical and public health opportunity to re-engage smokers in cessation efforts.

Meeting the healthy people 2020 goals: using the Health Information National Trends Survey to monitor progress on health communication objectives.

The Healthy People initiative outlines a comprehensive set of goals aimed at improving the nation's health and reducing health disparities. Health communication has been included as an explicit goal since the launch of Healthy People 2010. The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) was established as a means of exploring how the changing information environment was affecting the public's health, and is therefore an ideal tool for monitoring key health communication objectives included in the Healthy People agenda. In this article, the authors apply an integrative data analysis strategy to more than 10 years of HINTS data to demonstrate how public health surveillance can be used to evaluate broad national health goals, like those set forth under the Healthy People initiative. The authors analyzed just one item from the HINTS survey regarding Internet access in order to illustrate what public health surveillance tools, like HINTS, can reveal about important indicators that are of interest to all those who work to improve the health of the public. Results show that reported Internet penetration has exceeded the Healthy People 2020 target of 75.4%. HINTS data also allowed modeling of the effects of various sociodemographic factors, which revealed persistent differences on the basis of age and education, with the oldest age groups and those with less than a college education falling short of the Healthy People 2020 target as of 2013. Furthermore, although differences by race/ethnicity were observed, the analyses suggest that race in itself accounts for very little of the variance in Internet access.

Predictors of eHealth usage: insights on the digital divide from the Health Information National Trends Survey 2012.

BACKGROUND: Recent eHealth developments have elevated the importance of assessing the extent to which technology has empowered patients and improved health, particularly among the most vulnerable populations. With noted disparities across racial and social groups in chronic health outcomes, such as cancer, obesity, and diabetes, it is essential that researchers examine any differences in the implementation, uptake, and impact of eHealth strategies across groups that bear a disproportionate burden of disease. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to examine eHealth use by sociodemographic factors, such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), age, and sex. METHODS: We drew data from National Cancer Institute's 2012 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) (N=3959) which is publicly available online. We estimated multivariable logistic regression models to assess sociodemographic predictors of eHealth use among adult Internet users (N=2358) across 3 health communication domains (health care, health information-seeking, and user-generated content/sharing). RESULTS: Among online adults, we saw no evidence of a digital use divide by race/ethnicity. However, there were significant differences in use by SES, particularly for health care and health information-seeking items. Patients with lower levels of education had significantly lower odds of going online to look for a health care provider (high school or less: OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33-0.76) using email or the Internet to communicate with a doctor (high school or less: OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.72), tracking their personal health information online (high school or less: OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.84), using a website to help track diet, weight, and physical activity (high school or less: OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.98; some college: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.93), or downloading health information to a mobile device (some college: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.89). Being female was a consistent predictor of eHealth use across health care and user-generated content/sharing domains, whereas age was primarily influential for health information-seeking. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates that lower SES, older, and male online US adults were less likely to engage in a number of eHealth activities compared to their counterparts. Future studies should assess issues of health literacy and eHealth literacy and their influence on eHealth engagement across social groups. Clinical care and public health communication efforts attempting to leverage Web 2.0 and 3.0 platforms should acknowledge differential eHealth usage to better address communication inequalities and persistent disparities in health.

Cancer communication science funding trends, 2000-2012.

BACKGROUND: Since 2000, the field of health communication has grown tremendously, owing largely to research funding by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This study provides an overview of cancer communication science funding trends in the past decade. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of communication-related grant applications submitted to the NCI in fiscal years 2000-2012. Using 103 keywords related to health communication, data were extracted from the Portfolio Management Application, a grants management application used at NCI. Automated coding described key grant characteristics such as mechanism and review study section. Manual coding determined funding across the cancer control continuum, by cancer site, and by cancer risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 3307 unique grant applications met initial inclusion criteria; 1013 of these were funded over the 12-year period. The top funded grant mechanisms were the R01, R21, and R03. Applications were largely investigator-initiated proposals as opposed to responses to particular funding opportunity announcements. Among funded communication research, the top risk factor being studied was tobacco, and across the cancer control continuum, cancer prevention was the most common stage investigated. CONCLUSIONS: NCI support of cancer communication research has been an important source of growth for health communication science over the last 12 years. The analysis' findings describe NCI's priorities in cancer communication science and suggest areas for future investments.

Challenges in covering health disparities in local news media: an exploratory analysis assessing views of journalists.

News coverage of health topics influences knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors at the individual level, and agendas and actions at the institutional and policy levels. Because disparities in health often are the result of social inequalities that require community-level or policy-level solutions, news stories employing a health disparities news frame may contribute to agenda-setting among opinion leaders and policymakers and lead to policy efforts aimed at reducing health disparities. This study objective was to conduct an exploratory analysis to qualitatively describe barriers that health journalists face when covering health disparities in local media. Between June and October 2007, 18 journalists from television, print, and radio in Boston, Lawrence, and Worcester, Massachusetts, were recruited using a purposive sampling technique. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted by telephone, and the crystallization/immersion method was used to conduct a qualitative analysis of interview transcripts. Our results revealed that journalists said that they consider several angles when developing health stories, including public impact and personal behavior change. Challenges to employing a health disparities frame included inability to translate how research findings may impact different socioeconomic groups, and difficulty understanding how findings may translate across racial/ethnic groups. Several journalists reported that disparities-focused stories are "less palatable" for some audiences. This exploratory study offers insights into the challenges that local news media face in using health disparities news frames in their routine coverage of health news. Public health practitioners may use these findings to inform communication efforts with local media in order to advance the public dialogue about health disparities.

The role of reported tobacco-specific media exposure on adult attitudes towards proposed policies to limit the portrayal of smoking in movies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative, independent contribution of reported tobacco-specific media exposure (pro-tobacco advertising, anti-tobacco advertising, and news coverage of tobacco issues) to US adults' support for policy efforts that aim to regulate the portrayal of smoking in movies. METHODS: Using the American Legacy Foundation's 2003 American Smoking and Health Survey (ASHES-2), multivariable logistic regression was used to model the predicted probability that US adults support movie-specific tobacco control policies, by reported exposure to tobacco-specific media messages, controlling for smoking status, education, income, race/ethnicity, age, sex, knowledge of the negative effects of tobacco and state. RESULTS: Across most outcome variables under study, findings reveal that reported exposure to tobacco-specific media messages is associated with adult attitudes towards movie-specific policy measures. Most exposure to tobacco information in the media (with the exception of pro-tobacco advertising on the internet) contributes independently to the prediction of adult support for movie-specific policies. The direction of effect follows an expected pattern, with reported exposure to anti-tobacco advertising and news coverage of tobacco predicting supportive attitudes towards movie policies, and reported exposure to pro-tobacco advertising lessening support for some movie policies, though the medium of delivery makes a difference. CONCLUSION: Media campaigns to prevent tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke have had value beyond the intended impact of single-issue campaigns; exposure to anti-tobacco campaigns and public dialogue about the dangers of tobacco seem also to be associated with shaping perceptions of the social world related to norms about tobacco, and ideas about regulating the portrayal of smoking in movies.

The role of tobacco-specific media exposure, knowledge, and smoking status on selected attitudes toward tobacco control.

BACKGROUND: In August 2007, the President's Cancer Panel urged the leadership of the nation to "summon the political will to address the public health crisis caused by tobacco use" (President's Cancer Panel, N, 2007, Promoting healthy lifestyles: Policy, program, and personal recommendations for reducing cancer risk. http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp07rpt/pcp07rpt.pdf). While some research has examined predictors of public support for tobacco control measures, little research has examined modifiable factors that may influence public attitudes toward tobacco control. METHODS: We used the American Legacy Foundation's 2003 American Smoking and Health Survey 2 to examine the contribution of smoking status, knowledge of the negative effects of tobacco, and tobacco-specific media exposure (antitobacco messages, news coverage of tobacco issues, and protobacco advertising) on U.S. adults' attitudes toward tobacco control. In addition, we assessed whether smoking status moderates the relationship between tobacco-specific media exposure and policy attitudes. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models were employed. RESULTS: Results suggest that knowledge of the negative effects of tobacco and smoking status are associated with attitudes toward tobacco control and that exposure to tobacco-specific information in the media plays a role only in some instances. We found no evidence of effect modification by smoking status on the impact of exposure to tobacco-specific media on attitudes toward tobacco control. DISCUSSION: Understanding the impact of readily modifiable factors that shape policy attitudes is essential if we are to target outreach and education in a way that is likely to sway public support for tobacco control.