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.

How to integrate shared decision-making into your practice.

Despite the many benefits of shared decision-making, uptake of its practices is low. These tools and frameworks can help you to engage patients in their care decisions.

From active treatment to surveillance: How the barriers and facilitators of implementing survivorship care planning could be an opportunity for telehealth in oncology care for rural patients.

Purpose: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery and the opportunity for telehealth in cancer survivorship is examined. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study in Vermont and New Hampshire to characterize perceptions of rural cancer providers and survivors regarding survivorship transitions in care, consisting of: a) key informant interviews with primary care and oncology clinicians, b) a broader survey of clinicians, and c) surveys and focus group discussions with cancer survivors. In these interactions, we also explored the use of a shared telehealth survivorship care planning appointment between oncology clinicians, primary care clinicians, and survivors. Results: Results from surveys and interviews clustered around several themes, namely: 1) infrequent care transitioning back to primary care; 2) lack of mental health services; 3) lack of side effect education; 4) low perceived utility of survivorship care plans; 5) clinicians exclusively communicate using the EMR and finding it imperfect; and 6) clinicians and survivors reported conflicting perceptions regarding survivors' access to telehealth options. Conclusions: Our results suggest that telehealth has potential to augment the delivery of survivorship care planning; however, key technical and logistical concerns need to be addressed, particularly enhanced coordination across clinician scheduling and ensuring payment parity for various telehealth implementation strategies. Implications for Cancer Survivors: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery. There is an opportunity for the application of telehealth for supportive care in survivorship care planning, which should be a focus of further research.

From active treatment to surveillance: how the barriers and facilitators of implementing survivorship care planning could be an opportunity for telehealth in oncology care for rural patients.

PURPOSE: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery, and the opportunity for telehealth in cancer survivorship is examined. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study in Vermont and New Hampshire to characterize perceptions of rural cancer providers and survivors regarding survivorship transitions in care, consisting of (a) key informant interviews with primary care and oncology clinicians, (b) a broader survey of clinicians, and (c) surveys and focus group discussions with cancer survivors. In these interactions, we also explored the use of a shared telehealth survivorship care planning appointment between oncology clinicians, primary care clinicians, and survivors. RESULTS: Results from surveys and interviews clustered around several themes, namely (1) infrequent care transitioning back to primary care, (2) lack of mental health services, (3) lack of side effect education, (4) low perceived utility of survivorship care plans, (5) clinicians exclusively communicate using the EMR and finding it imperfect, and (6) clinicians and survivors reported conflicting perceptions regarding survivors' access to telehealth options. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that telehealth has the potential to augment the delivery of survivorship care planning; however, key technical and logistical concerns need to be addressed, particularly enhanced coordination across clinician scheduling and ensuring payment parity for various telehealth implementation strategies. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivorship care planning is a recognized yet underutilized aspect of care delivery. There is an opportunity for the application of telehealth for supportive care in survivorship care planning, which should be a focus of further research.

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.

Shared decision making: skill acquisition for year III medical students.

BACKGROUND: A foundation of care within a Patient-centered Medical Home (PCMH) is respect for patients' values and preferences. Shared decision making (SDM) involves a set of principles and approaches to working with patients that integrates medical information and data with the preferences, values, and support systems of individual patients facing medical decisions. The value of SDM is increasingly evidenced by the incorporation of principles of SDM into the definitions of patient-centered care and PCMHs, accountable care organizations, and the language of the Health Reform Act of 2010. METHODS: We developed and integrated a curriculum on SDM in the third-year Family Medicine Clerkship at Dartmouth Medical School. The curriculum consisted of a mix of experiential, classroom, and online experiences designed to provide students with opportunities to learn content, practice skills, and share observations from their preceptorships. RESULTS: Student feedback was an important component of evaluating the SDM curriculum. Themes identified from students' reflections on their own behavior in a Simulated Patient Encounter included an increase in confidence and competence in their ability to use SDM, while noting the disconnect that may exist between what is taught in the clerkship and what they experience in their preceptorships. CONCLUSIONS: As this curriculum has developed, we have acquired a deep appreciation of the benefits and challenges of attempting to teach sophisticated communication and decision-making precepts to medical students who are working to master fundamentals of clinical work and who may or may not see such precepts reinforced in practice.