Digital Health Engagement in the US Population: Insights From the 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey.

Objectives. To examine prevalence and predictors of digital health engagement among the US population. Methods. We analyzed nationally representative cross-sectional data on 7 digital health engagement behaviors, as well as demographic and socioeconomic predictors, from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5, cycle 2, collected in 2018; n = 2698-3504). We fitted multivariable logistic regression models using weighted survey responses to generate population estimates. Results. Digitally seeking health information (70.14%) was relatively common, whereas using health apps (39.53%) and using a digital device to track health metrics (35.37%) or health goal progress (38.99%) were less common. Digitally communicating with one's health care providers (35.58%) was moderate, whereas sharing health data with providers (17.20%) and sharing health information on social media (14.02%) were uncommon. Being female, younger than 65 years, a college graduate, and a smart device owner positively predicted several digital health engagement behaviors (odds ratio range = 0.09-4.21; P value range < .001-.03). Conclusions. Many public health goals depend on a digitally engaged populace. These data highlight potential barriers to 7 key digital engagement behaviors that could be targeted for intervention.

Addressing Rural Geographic Disparities Through Health IT: Initial Findings From the Health Information National Trends Survey.

BACKGROUND: Rural communities experience disparate rates of chronic diseases and face distinct challenges in gaining access to health care. Increasing the reach of the US health information and communication technology infrastructure can support rural health by overcoming geographic and temporal health care barriers. OBJECTIVES: The goal of the study is to establish statistically valid point estimates for the use of health information technology within rural versus urban populations, and to understand the degree to which structural factors may account for the overall variance in the use of these technologies. METHODS: Data from the National Cancer Institute's 2017 Health Information National Trends Survey were used to estimate prevalence of Health IT engagement across rural and urban populations and model factors influencing use of online medical records. RESULTS: Rural residents reported similar rates of providers maintaining electronic health records and offering access to online medical records. However, rural residents with provider-maintained records were less likely to receive a provider recommendation to use online medical records and were subsequently less likely to actually access records. Observed differences in online medical record use were accounted for by variance in Internet access, access to a regular health care provider, and whether providers encouraged patients to use online records. CONCLUSIONS: Findings shed light on structural opportunities for overcoming geographic and temporal barriers to Health IT and extending the benefits of digital health information technologies to underserved populations.

Differences in Family Health History Knowledge Among Bisexual and Lesbian Women.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine whether there are differences between sexual minority women and heterosexual women in family health history knowledge. METHODS: We used data from Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation's The Health of Women Study®. We included women who completed two of six online surveys between 2012 and 2015 (n = 22,410). RESULTS: Compared with heterosexual women, bisexual and lesbian women had consistently greater odds of not knowing their family health history (e.g., odds ratios of 2.59 and 1.56 for breast cancer, respectively). CONCLUSION: To avoid exacerbating existing health disparities, in the era of precision medicine, we must address gaps in knowledge of family health history.

Making headlines: an analysis of US government-funded cancer research mentioned in online media.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise how online media coverage of journal articles on cancer funded by the US government varies by cancer type and stage of the cancer control continuum and to compare the disease prevalence rates with the amount of funded research published for each cancer type and with the amount of media attention each receives. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: The United States. PARTICIPANTS: The subject of analysis was 11 436 journal articles on cancer funded by the US government published in 2016. These articles were identified via PubMed and characterised as receiving online media attention based on data provided by Altmetric. RESULTS: 16.8% (n=1925) of articles published on US government-funded research were covered in the media. Published journal articles addressed all common cancers. Frequency of journal articles differed substantially across the common cancers, with breast cancer (n=1284), lung cancer (n=630) and prostate cancer (n=586) being the subject of the most journal articles. Roughly one-fifth to one-fourth of journal articles within each cancer category received online media attention. Media mentions were disproportionate to actual burden of each cancer type (ie, incidence and mortality), with breast cancer articles receiving the most media mentions. Scientific articles also covered the stages of the cancer continuum to varying degrees. Across the 13 most common cancer types, 4.4% (n=206) of articles focused on prevention and control, 11.7% (n=550) on diagnosis and 10.7% (n=502) on therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings revealed a mismatch between prevalent cancers and cancers highlighted in online media. Further, journal articles on cancer control and prevention received less media attention than other cancer continuum stages. Media mentions were not proportional to actual public cancer burden nor volume of scientific publications in each cancer category. Results highlight a need for continued research on the role of media, especially online media, in research dissemination.

A Community-Based Qualitative Assessment of Knowledge, Barriers, and Promoters of Communicating about Family Cancer History among African-Americans.

Family cancer history (FCH) can shape prevention and early detection behaviors to decrease cancer risk. However, many individuals are unaware of increased risk for cancers based on family patterns. For some African-American communities, communication about FCH is rare and barriers have not been well studied. To optimize the use of FCH, it is crucial to understand how patients gather and share FCH with relatives and healthcare providers. We conducted four focus groups (n = 40) and seven key informant interviews (n = 9) to investigate knowledge, experiences, and barriers/promoters of FCH in the East Baltimore African-American community. Thematic analysis identified 14 distinct themes across six communication domains: participants' understanding of FCH, past FCH communication with family and providers, barriers to FCH communication, promoters of FCH communication, suggestions for future communication, and community health priorities. FCH was most often defined by narratives of family cancer experiences, and the majority of participants had shared little FCH with family members. Five psychosocial domains were commonly reported as barriers to sharing FCH: fear/denial, pride/dignity, selflessness/self-sacrifice, cancer fatalism, and distrust/skepticism of medical care. Diagnosis/death and caregiving/social support promoted FCH communication and encouraged cancer prevention behaviors such as screening. Although most participants had experienced cancer in their families, communication about FCH was low and psychosocial barriers were common. Understanding these communication domains in minority populations is crucial to developing interventions to address disparities in cancer prevention and control, particularly where effective screening and care recommendations exist for those with positive family histories.

Clinical Evaluation of an Individualized Risk Prediction Tool for Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether providing individualized predictions of health outcomes to men on active surveillance (AS) alleviates cancer-related anxiety and improves risk understanding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We consecutively recruited men from our large, institutional AS program before (n = 36) and after (n = 31) implementation of a risk prediction tool. Men in both groups were surveyed before and after their regular visits to assess their perceived cancer control, biopsy-specific anxiety, and burden from cancer-related information. We compared pre-/post-visit differences between men who were and were not shown the tool using two-sample t-tests. Satisfaction with and understanding of the predictions were elicited from men in the intervention period. RESULTS: Men reported a relatively high level of cancer control at baseline. Men who were not shown the tool saw a 6.3 point increase (scaled from 0 to 100) in their perceived cancer control from before to after their visit whereas men who were shown the tool saw a 12.8 point increase, indicating a statistically significant difference between groups (p = .04). Biopsy-specific anxiety and burden from cancer information were not significantly different between groups. Men were satisfied with the tool and demonstrated moderate understanding. CONCLUSION: Providing individualized predictions to men on AS helps them better understand their cancer risk and should be considered at other clinical sites.