New Frontiers in Health Literacy: Using ChatGPT to Simplify Health Information for People in the Community.

BACKGROUND: Most health information does not meet the health literacy needs of our communities. Writing health information in plain language is time-consuming but the release of tools like ChatGPT may make it easier to produce reliable plain language health information. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the capacity for ChatGPT to produce plain language versions of health texts. DESIGN: Observational study of 26 health texts from reputable websites. METHODS: ChatGPT was prompted to 'rewrite the text for people with low literacy'. Researchers captured three revised versions of each original text. MAIN MEASURES: Objective health literacy assessment, including Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), proportion of the text that contains complex language (%), number of instances of passive voice and subjective ratings of key messages retained (%). KEY RESULTS: On average, original texts were written at grade 12.8 (SD = 2.2) and revised to grade 11.0 (SD = 1.2), p < 0.001. Original texts were on average 22.8% complex (SD = 7.5%) compared to 14.4% (SD = 5.6%) in revised texts, p < 0.001. Original texts had on average 4.7 instances (SD = 3.2) of passive text compared to 1.7 (SD = 1.2) in revised texts, p < 0.001. On average 80% of key messages were retained (SD = 15.0). The more complex original texts showed more improvements than less complex original texts. For example, when original texts were ≥ grade 13, revised versions improved by an average 3.3 grades (SD = 2.2), p < 0.001. Simpler original texts (< grade 11) improved by an average 0.5 grades (SD = 1.4), p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: This study used multiple objective assessments of health literacy to demonstrate that ChatGPT can simplify health information while retaining most key messages. However, the revised texts typically did not meet health literacy targets for grade reading score, and improvements were marginal for texts that were already relatively simple.

Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations.

BACKGROUND: Older women receive no information about why Australia's breast screening program (BreastScreen) invitations cease after 74 years. We tested how providing older women with the rationale for breast screening cessation impacted informed choice (adequate knowledge; screening attitudes aligned with intention). METHODS: In a three-arm online randomized trial, eligible participants were females aged 70-74 years who had recently participated in breast screening (within 5 years), without personal breast cancer history, recruited through Qualtrics. Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they received a BreastScreen letter reporting no abnormalities on their mammogram. They were randomized to receive the letter: (1) without any rationale for screening cessation (control); (2) with screening cessation rationale in printed-text form (e.g., downsides of screening outweigh the benefits after age 74); or (3) with screening cessation rationale presented in an animation video form. The primary outcome was informed choice about continuing/stopping breast screening beyond 74 years. RESULTS: A total of 376 participant responses were analyzed. Compared to controls (n = 122), intervention arm participants (text [n = 132] or animation [n = 122]) were more likely to make an informed choice (control 18.0%; text 32.6%, p = .010; animation 40.5%, p < .001). Intervention arm participants had more adequate knowledge (control 23.8%; text 59.8%, p < .001; animation 68.9%, p < .001), lower screening intentions (control 17.2%; text 36.4%, p < .001; animation 49.2%, p < .001), and fewer positive screening attitudes regarding screening for themselves in the animation arm, but not in the text arm (control 65.6%; text 51.5%, p = .023; animation 40.2%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing information to older women about the rationale for breast cancer screening cessation increased informed decision-making in a hypothetical scenario. This study is an important first step in improving messaging provided by national cancer screening providers direct to older adults. Further research is needed to assess the impact of different elements of the intervention and the impact of providing this information in clinical practice, with more diverse samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTRN12623000033640.

Attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding the anti-müllerian hormone test among general practitioners and reproductive specialists: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide survey. SETTING: Australia. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: A total of 362 general practitioners (GPs), gynaecologists and reproductive specialists. METHODS: Clinicians were recruited through relevant professional organisations, with data collected from May 2021 to April 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the AMH test, measured using multiple choice, Likert scales and open-ended items. RESULTS: Fifteen percent of GPs (n = 27) and 40% of gynaecologists and other specialists (n = 73) order at least one AMH test per month. Specialists reported raising the idea of testing most of the time, whereas GPs reported that patient request was more common. Half of clinicians lacked confidence interpreting (n = 182, 51%) and explaining (n = 173, 48%) an AMH result to their patients. Five percent (n = 19) believed the test was moderately/very useful in predicting natural conception/birth and 22% (n = 82) believed the same for predicting premature menopause, despite evidence that the test cannot reliably predict either. Forty percent (n = 144) had previously ordered the test to help with reproductive planning and 21% (n = 75) to provide reassurance about fertility. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians reported use of AMH testing in clinical circumstances not supported by the evidence. With the proliferation of direct-to-consumer testing, efforts to support clinicians in the judicious use of testing and effectively navigating patient requests are needed.

A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User-Testing With Patients and Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence-based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first). DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with think-aloud user-testing protocol. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica. OUTCOME MEASURES: Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument). METHODS: The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user-testing, which involved discussing user-testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round. RESULTS: As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user-testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision-making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question-asking and help patients reflect on personal values. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user-testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group.

Community awareness and use of anti-Müllerian hormone testing in Australia: a population survey of women.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test usage, awareness, and perceived reasons for testing in a representative community sample of women in Australia? SUMMARY ANSWER: : Among women aged 18-55 years, 13% had heard about AMH testing and 7% had had an AMH test, with the top three reasons for testing including due to infertility investigations (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand their chances (19%) or to find out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The growing availability of direct-to-consumer AMH testing has raised concerns about overuse, however as most AMH tests are paid for privately by consumers, data on test usage is not publicly available. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: National cross-sectional survey of 1773 women, conducted in January 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Females aged 18-55 years were recruited from the representative 'Life in Australia' probability-based population panel and completed the survey online or by telephone. Main outcome measures included if and how participants had heard about AMH testing, whether they had ever had an AMH test, main reason for testing and test access. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 2423 women who were invited 1773 responded (73% response rate). Of these, 229 (13%) had heard about AMH testing and 124 (7%) had had an AMH test. Testing rates were highest among those currently aged 35-39 years (14%) and associated with educational attainment. Almost all accessed the test through their general practitioner or fertility specialist. Reasons for testing were: part of an infertility investigation (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand chances of conceiving (19%), finding out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%), curiosity (9%), considering egg freezing (5%), and considering delaying pregnancy (2%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the sample was large and mostly representative, it was over-represented by people holding a university degree and under-represented by people aged 18-24, however, we used weighted data where possible to account for this. All data were self-reported so there is a risk of recall bias. The number of survey items was also restricted, so the type of counselling women received prior to testing, reasons for declining an AMH test or test timing were not measured. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Whilst most women reported having an AMH test for appropriate reasons, about one third had it for reasons not supported by evidence. Public and clinician education about the lack of utility of AMH testing for women not undergoing infertility treatment is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence grant (1104136) and Program grant (1113532). T.C. is supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellowship (2009419). B.W.M. reports research funding, consultancy and travel support from Merck. D.L. is the Medical Director of City Fertility NSW and reports consultancy for Organon, Ferring, Besins and Merck. The authors have no other competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Early COVID-19 Attitudes and Behaviors and Their Associations With Later Infection: A Local Perspective From One U.S. City.

BACKGROUND: At the onset of the pandemic, there was poor public awareness and inaction in response to COVID-19; it is less known whether this translated to subsequent infections. OBJECTIVES: To explore whether adults who perceived COVID-19 as less of a threat and who were not taking early actions were more likely to become infected over the following year. RESEARCH DESIGN: Survey data from the ongoing (COVID-19 & Chronic Conditions (C3) anonymized for review) cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred forty-two adults with a mean age of 63 and ≥1 chronic condition. MEASURES: Self-reported attitudes and behaviors regarding COVID-19 were assessed from March 13 to April 3, 2020, and COVID-19 infection status was captured between May 2020 and January 2021. Bivariate and multivariable analyses examined associations between early perceptions and behaviors with later infection. RESULTS: Approximately 7% reported infection with COVID-19 (N = 46). Adults who perceived the threat of COVID-19 less seriously at the initial outbreak were more likely to test positive over the following year [odds ratio (OR): 0.81, CI: 0.70-0.94; P = 0.006]. Those who were less likely to believe their actions would affect whether they would become infected were more likely to test positive (OR: 0.87, CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.03), as were adults who reported not changing their routines (OR: 0.45; CI: 0.24-0.85; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with delayed responses in acknowledging the threat of COVID-19 and in changing behaviors were more likely to contract the virus. This investigation provides insight into the consequences of inadequate public understanding and response to COVID-19, and it highlights the importance of promoting early awareness among high-risk groups during public health crises.

Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners' Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction. PURPOSE: To examine the factors influencing PCPs' recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Assessed factors influencing PCPs' breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults' (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy). DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time. LIMITATIONS: We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA. CONCLUSIONS: Although PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021268219. FUNDING SOURCE: NHMRC APP1113532.

Complex intervention to promote human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake in school settings: A cluster-randomized trial.

Using a cluster-randomized trial design, we aimed to evaluate a complex intervention to increase uptake of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in schools. The study was undertaken in high schools in Western Australia and South Australia between 2013 and 2015 with adolescents aged 12-13 years. Interventions included education, shared decision-making, and logistical strategies. The main outcome was school vaccine uptake. Secondary outcomes included consent forms returned and mean time to vaccinate 50 students. We hypothesised that a complex intervention would increase 3-dose HPV vaccine uptake. We recruited 40 schools (21 intervention, 19 control) with 6, 967 adolescents. There was no difference between intervention and control (3-dose mean 75.7% and 78.9%, respectively). Following adjustment for baseline covariates, absolute differences in coverage in favour of the intervention group were: dose 1, 0.8% (95% CI, -1.4,3.0); dose 2, 0.2% (95% CI, -2.7, 3.1); dose 3, 0.5% (95% CI, -2.6, 3.7). The percentage of returned consent forms in intervention schools (91.4%) was higher than in control schools (difference: 6%, 95% CI, 1.4, 10.7). There was a shorter mean time to vaccinate 50 students at dose 3. The difference for dose 3 was 110 min (95% CI, 42, 177); for dose 2, 90 min (95% CI, -15, 196); and dose 1, 28 min (95% CI, -71, 127). Logs revealed the inconsistent implementation of logistical strategies. The intervention had no impact on uptake. Inadequate resourcing for logistical strategies and advisory board reluctance toward strategies with potential financial implications impacted the implementation of logistical components. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000404628, 14.04.2014. The study protocol was published in 2015 before data collection was finalised (Skinner et al., 2015). THE HPV.EDU STUDY GROUP: We would like to acknowledge the contributions to this study by members of the HPV.edu Study Group, including: Professor Annette Braunack-Mayer: Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia; Dr. Joanne Collins: Women's and Children's Health Network and School of Medicine and Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia; Associate Professor Spring Cooper: School of Public Health, City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, USA; Heidi Hutton: Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, WA, Australia; Jane Jones: Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, WA, Australia; Dr. Adriana Parrella: Women's and Children's Health Network and School of Medicine and Robinson Research Institute, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia; and South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, Australia; Associate Professor David G. Regan: The Kirby Institute for Infection and Immunity in Society, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW Sydney, NSW, Australia; Professor Peter Richmond: Perth Children's Hospital, Child and Adolescent Health Service, Western Australia, Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases, Telethon Kids Institute, WA, Australia, and School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia; Dr. Tanya Stoney: Telethon Kids Institute, University of Western Australia, WA, Australia. Contact for the HPV.edu study group: Cristyn.Davies@sydney.edu.au or Rachel.Skinner@sydney.edu.au.

Psychosocial outcomes and health service use after notifying women participating in population breast screening when they have dense breasts: a BreastScreen Queensland randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Robust evidence regarding the benefits and harms of notifying Australian women when routine breast screening identifies that they have dense breasts is needed for informing future mammography population screening practice and policy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the psychosocial and health services use effects of notifying women participating in population-based breast cancer screening that they have dense breasts; to examine whether the mode of communicating this information about its implications (print, online formats) influences these effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study population comprises women aged 40 years or older who attend BreastScreen Queensland Sunshine Coast services for mammographic screening and are found to have dense breasts (BI-RADS density C or D). The randomised controlled trial includes three arms (952 women each): standard BreastScreen care (no notification of breast density; control arm); notification of dense breasts in screening results letter and print health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 1) or a link or QR code to online video-based health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 2). Baseline demographic data will be obtained from BreastScreen Queensland. Outcomes data will be collected in questionnaires at baseline and eight weeks, twelve months, and 27 months after breast screening. Primary outcomes will be psychological outcomes and health service use; secondary outcomes will be supplemental screening outcomes, cancer worry, perceived breast cancer risk, knowledge about breast density, future mammographic screening intentions, and acceptability of notification about dense breasts. ETHICS APPROVAL: Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service Ethics Committee (HREC/2023/QGC/89770); Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service Research Governance and Development (SSA/2023/QSC/89770). DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS: Findings will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. They will also be reported to BreastScreen Queensland, BreastScreen Australia, Cancer Australia, and other bodies involved in cancer care and screening, including patient and support organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000001695p (prospective: 9 January 2023).

Beliefs about medicines and adherence to asthma medications during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: Discontinuation of, and non-adherence to, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for asthma treatment is a significant issue in pregnancy. This study characterized beliefs about medicines in pregnant women with asthma and investigated associations with ICS adherence. METHODS: Pregnant women with relatively mild asthma (n = 302) were grouped according to ICS use and self-reported adherence (≥80% doses taken). They completed questions about dislike of asthma medications and the validated Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), which consists of ten questions about asthma medicines ("necessity" questions about maintaining health, or "concern" questions about adverse effects), and eight general medicine questions, scored on five-point Likert scales. The Necessity Concerns differential (N-C) was calculated, with positive scores indicating that the patient perceives the benefits of medicines to outweigh the risks. RESULTS: ICS was used by 87 (29%) women, with 49 (56%) self-reporting adherence. Of the 22% who disliked taking asthma medications during pregnancy, 20% had the belief that the medication was unsafe. ICS users had a significantly higher BMQ necessity score and higher necessity-concern differential score than nonusers; when adjusted for covariates, ICS non-adherence was associated with a lower necessity score (p = 0.015). Women adherent to ICS were more likely to agree to "my health at present depends on my asthma medication" compared to non-adherent ICS users. CONCLUSIONS: ICS non-adherence was not associated with having relatively more concerns about asthma medicines; however, ICS users were more likely to perceive that the benefits of medication use outweighed any risks. Interventions to improve asthma medication adherence in pregnancy are needed.

Screening for cancer beyond recommended upper age limits: views and experiences of older people.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, screening programmes and clinical practice guidelines recommend when older adults should stop cancer screening using upper age limits, but it is unknown how older adults view these recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To examine older adults' views and experiences about continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the recommended upper age limit for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. SETTING: Australia, telephone. SUBJECTS: A total of 29 community-dwelling older adults (≥70-years); recruited from organisation newsletters, mailing lists and Facebook advertisements. METHODS: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Firstly, older adults were on a spectrum between trusting recommendations and actively deciding about cancer screening, with some who were uncertain. Secondly, participants reported limited in-depth discussions with health professionals about cancer screening. In primary care, discussions were focused on checking they were up to date with screening or going over results. Discussions mostly only occurred if older adults initiated themselves. Finally, participants had a socially- and self-constructed understanding of screening recommendations and potential outcomes. Perceived reasons for upper age limits were cost, reduced cancer risk or ageism. Risks of screening were understood in relation to their own social experiences (e.g. shared stories about friends with adverse outcomes of cancer treatment or conversations with friends/family about controversy around prostate screening). CONCLUSIONS: Direct-to-patient information and clinician support may help improve communication about the changing benefit to harm ratio of cancer screening with increasing age and increase understanding about the rationale for an upper age limit for cancer screening programmes.

Embedding health literacy research and best practice within a socioeconomically and culturally diverse health service: A narrative case study and revised model of co-creation.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy interventions and research outcomes are not routinely or systematically implemented within healthcare systems. Co-creation with stakeholders is a potential vehicle through which to accelerate and scale up the implementation of innovation from research. METHODS: This narrative case study describes an example of the application of a co-creation approach to improve health literacy in an Australian public health system that provides hospital and community health services to one million people from socioeconomically and culturally diverse backgrounds. We provide a detailed overview of the value co-creation stages and strategies used to build a practical and sustainable working relationship between a University-based academic research group and the local health district focussed on improving health literacy. RESULTS: Insights from our experience over a 5-year period informed the development of a revised model of co-creation. The model incorporates a practical focus on the structural enablers of co-creation, including the development of a Community of Practice, co-created strategic direction and shared management systems. The model also includes a spectrum of partnership modalities (spanning relationship-building, partnering and co-creating), acknowledging the evolving nature of research partnerships and reinforcing the flexibility and commitment required to achieve meaningful co-creation in research. Four key facilitators of health literacy co-creation are identified: (i) local champions, (ii) co-generated resources, (iii) evolving capability and understanding and (iv) increasing trust and partnership synergy. CONCLUSION: Our case study and co-creation model provide insights into mechanisms to create effective and collaborative ways of working in health literacy which may be transferable to other health fields in Australia and beyond. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Our co-creation approach brought together a community of practice of consumers, healthcare professionals and researchers as equal partners.

Integrating consumer perspectives into a large-scale health literacy audit of health information materials: learnings and next steps.

BACKGROUND: Health information is less effective when it does not meet the health literacy needs of its consumers. For health organisations, assessing the appropriateness of their existing health information resources is a key step to addressing this issue. This study describes novel methods for a consumer-centred large-scale health literacy audit of existing resources and reflects on opportunities to further refine the method. METHODS: This audit focused on resources developed by NPS MedicineWise, an Australian not-for-profit that promotes safe and informed use of medicines. The audit comprised 4 stages, with consumers engaged at each stage: 1) Select a sample of resources for assessment; 2) Assess the sample using subjective (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool) and objective (Sydney Health Literacy Lab Health Literacy Editor) assessment tools; 3) Review audit findings through workshops and identify priority areas for future work; 4) Reflect and gather feedback on the audit process via interviews. RESULTS: Of 147 resources, consumers selected 49 for detailed assessment that covered a range of health topics, health literacy skills, and formats, and which had varied web usage. Overall, 42 resources (85.7%) were assessed as easy to understand, but only 26 (53.1%) as easy to act on. A typical text was written at a grade 12 reading level and used the passive voice 6 times. About one in five words in a typical text were considered complex (19%). Workshops identified three key areas for action: make resources easier to understand and act on; consider the readers' context, needs, and skills; and improve inclusiveness and representation. Interviews with workshop attendees highlighted that audit methods could be further improved by setting clear expectations about the project rationale, objectives, and consumer roles; providing consumers with a simpler subjective health literacy assessment tool, and addressing issues related to diverse representation. CONCLUSIONS: This audit yielded valuable consumer-centred priorities for improving organisational health literacy with regards to updating a large existing database of health information resources. We also identified important opportunities to further refine the process. Study findings provide valuable practical insights that can inform organisational health actions for the upcoming Australian National Health Literacy Strategy.

COVID-19 messages targeting young people on social media: content analysis of Australian health authority posts.

Health authorities utilized social media during the COVID-19 pandemic to disseminate critical and timely health messages, specifically targeting priority groups such as young people. To understand how social media was used for this purpose, we investigated the content of COVID-19-related social media posts targeting young people (16-29 years old) shared by Australian health departments. Posts targeting young people with COVID-19 information were extracted from all eight Australian State and Territory health department Facebook, Instagram and TikTok accounts over 1 month of the Delta outbreak (September 2021) and analysed thematically. In total, 238 posts targeting young people were identified from 1059 COVID-19 posts extracted. All eight health departments used Facebook, five used Instagram and only one used TikTok. The majority of posts implicitly targeted young people; only 14.7% explicitly mentioned age or 'young people'. All posts included accompanying visuals; 77% were still images like photos or illustrations whilst 23% were moving images like videos and GIFs. Communication techniques included calls to action (63% of posts), responsive communication (32% of posts) and positive emotional appeal (31% of posts). Social marketing techniques catering to young people were used to varying extents despite receiving higher levels of engagement; 45% featured emojis whilst only 16% used humour, 14% featured celebrities and 6% were memes. Priority groups like ethnic/cultural groups and chronic health/disability communities were rarely targeted in this communication. The findings indicate a lack of health communication on social media directed towards young people, highlighting an opportunity for increased use of platforms like TikTok and trends popular with young people online.

Systematic review of health literacy champions: who, what and how?

Health literacy is an important aspect of equitable, safe, and high-quality care. For organizations implementing health literacy initiatives, using 'change champions' appears to be a promising strategy. This systematic review aimed to identify the empirical and conceptual research that exists about health literacy champions. We conducted the systematic literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and PubMed, with additional studies identified by searching references and citations of included studies and reviews of organizational health literacy. Seventeen articles were included in the final review (case studies, n = 9; qualitative research, n = 4; quasi-experimental, n = 2; opinion articles without case studies, n = 2). Using JBI critical appraisal tools, most articles had a high risk of bias. Often champions were not the focus of the article. Champions included staff across frontline, management, and executive levels. Only five studies described training for champions. Key champion activities related to either (i) increasing organizational awareness and commitment to health literacy, or (ii) influencing organizational strategic and operational planning. The most common output was ensuring that the organization's health information materials met health literacy guidelines. Articles recommended engaging multiple champions at varying levels within the organization, including the executive level. Limited funding and resources were key barriers. Two of four articles reported positive impacts of champions on implementation of health literacy initiatives. Overall, few of the articles described health literacy champions in adequate detail. More comprehensive reporting on this implementation strategy and further experimental and process evaluation research are needed to progress this area of research. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022348816).

Impact of alternative terminology for depression on help-seeking intention: A randomized online trial.

OBJECTIVE: People with depression experience barriers to seeking professional help. Different diagnostic terminology can influence people's treatment/management preferences. The aim of this study was to investigate how alternative depression diagnostic labels and recommendations impact help-seeking intentions and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Participants (18-70 years) were recruited using an online panel (Australia) to complete a randomized controlled trial. They read a hypothetical scenario where they discussed experiencing depressive symptoms with their GP and were randomized to receive one of four diagnoses ("depression," "burnout," "functional impairment syndrome" [fictitious label], no label [control]), and one of two follow-up recommendations ("clinical psychologist," "mind coach"). PRIMARY OUTCOME: help-seeking intention (5-point scale, higher = greater intention); secondary outcomes: intention to speak to boss, self-stigma, worry, perceived severity, illness perceptions, and personal stigma. RESULTS: A total of 676 participants completed the survey. There was no main effect of diagnostic label on help-seeking intention or stigma outcomes. Intention to speak to a boss was higher with the depression compared to burnout label (MD = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.14-0.66) and perceived severity was higher with the depression label compared to control (MD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74) and all other labels. Those who received the "clinical psychologist" recommendation reported higher help-seeking intention (MD = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.25-0.60) and treatment control (MD = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.29-1.10) compared to the "mind coach" recommendation. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the success of efforts to promote help-seeking from clinical psychologists for depression. If burnout is considered a separate diagnostic entity to depression, greater awareness around what such a diagnosis means may be needed. Future research should examine how different terminologies surrounding other mental health conditions impact help-seeking and stigma.

Effect of asthma management with exhaled nitric oxide versus usual care on perinatal outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma exacerbations in pregnancy are associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. We aimed to determine whether fractional exhaled nitric oxide (F ENO)-based asthma management improves perinatal outcomes compared to usual care. METHODS: The Breathing for Life Trial was a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial conducted in six hospital antenatal clinics, which compared asthma management guided by F ENO (adjustment of asthma treatment according to exhaled nitric oxide and symptoms each 6-12 weeks) to usual care (no treatment adjustment as part of the trial). The primary outcome was a composite of adverse perinatal events (preterm birth, small for gestational age (SGA), perinatal mortality or neonatal hospitalisation) assessed using hospital records. Secondary outcomes included maternal asthma exacerbations. Concealed random allocation, stratified by study site and self-reported smoking status was used, with blinded outcome assessment and statistical analysis (intention to treat). RESULTS: Pregnant women with current asthma were recruited; 599 to the control group (608 infants) and 601 to the intervention (615 infants). There were no significant group differences for the primary composite perinatal outcome (152 (25.6%) out of 594 control, 177 (29.4%) out of 603 intervention; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94-1.56; p=0.15), preterm birth (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.78-1.68), SGA (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.78-1.68), perinatal mortality (OR 3.62, 95% CI 0.80-16.5), neonatal hospitalisation (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.89-1.72) or maternal asthma exacerbations requiring hospital admission or emergency department presentation (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.69-2.05). CONCLUSION: F ENO-guided asthma pharmacotherapy delivered by a nurse or midwife in the antenatal clinic setting did not improve perinatal outcomes.

Perceptions of Conflicting Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Women: a Multimethod Study.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting breast cancer screening recommendations have the potential to diminish informed decision making about screening. OBJECTIVE: We examined the knowledge, attitudes, and intentions related to divergent recommendations for breast cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse women. DESIGN: We used a multimethod study design employing focus groups and questionnaires. Focus groups included: (1) two 10-min presentations on the national screening recommendations and the potential benefits and harms of screening and (2) an interactive discussion. Data were collected: 8/3/2017 to 11/19/2019. Analysis occurred from 1/21/2019 to 7/24/2020. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were (1) women 40-75 years; (2) English or Spanish speaking; (3)self-identified as Latina, Black, or non-Latina White; and (4) no known increased risk for breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes were participants' knowledge and perceptions of benefits and harms of screening mammography and their screening intentions. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. KEY RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four women (n=52, 40-49 years; n=82, 50-75 years) participated in 28 focus groups. Participants were Latina (n=44); Black (n=51); and non-Latina White (n=39). Approximately one-quarter (n=32) had limited health literacy and almost one-fifth (n=23) had limited numeracy. In the context of differing national screening recommendations, participants questioned the motives of the recommendation-making agencies, including the role of costs and how costs were considered when making screening recommendations. Participants expressed concern that they were not represented (e.g., race/ethnicity) in the data informing the recommendations. Immediately following the focus groups, most participants expressed intention to screen within the upcoming year (pre n=100 vs. post n=107). CONCLUSIONS: Divergent breast cancer screening recommendations may lead to mistrust and paradoxically reinforce high overall enthusiasm for screening.

Psychosocial impact of testing human papillomavirus positive in Australia's human papillomavirus-based cervical screening program: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of self-reported human papillomavirus (HPV) test result (HPV negative, HPV positive, HPV result unknown) on a range of psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Women and other people with a cervix in Australia aged 25-74 years who reported having participated in cervical screening since December 2017 were recruited through Facebook and Instagram to complete an online survey. The primary outcome measures were anxiety, emotional distress, and general distress. RESULTS: Nine hundred fifteen participants completed the online survey; 73.2% reported testing HPV negative ('HPV-'), 15% reported testing HPV positive ('HPV+') and 11.8% reported that they did not know/remember their test result ('HPV unknown'). Compared to participants testing HPV-, participants testing HPV+ had higher mean anxiety (41.67 vs. 37.08, p < 0.001) and emotional distress scores (11.88 vs. 7.71, p < 0.001). Concern about test result (34.3% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001), perceived risk compared to average women (55.4% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001), and cancer worry (27.8% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001) were also greater among HPV+ participants than participants testing HPV-. Participants testing HPV+ felt less reassured about their screening result than participants testing HPV- (16% vs. 75.1%, p < 0.001). Participants testing HPV+ had greater knowledge of HPV (11.96 vs. 10.36 out of 16, p < 0.001) and HPV testing (3.94 vs 3.28 out of 5, p < 0.001) than participants who reported testing HPV-. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated levels of anxiety and emotional distress were found in those testing HPV+ compared with those testing HPV-. Future research should examine what strategies should be used to deliver test results and what additional information is provided, in order to alleviate anxiety among individuals testing HPV+.

The impact of health literacy on psychosocial and behavioural outcomes among people at low risk of cardiovascular disease.

This study aimed to explore the impact of health literacy on psychosocial and behavioural outcomes for people who were not at high risk of cardiovascular disease receiving a hypothetical blood pressure reading of 135/85 mmHg. We performed a secondary analysis of data from a national sample of Australians aged 40 to 50 years (n = 1318) recruited online. Health literacy was measured using the validated Newest Vital Sign (inadequate: 0-3; adequate: 4-6). Analysed outcomes included: willingness to increase exercise and accept medication; perceived severity; positive and negative affect; illness perceptions and impacts on life and motivation. Participants with inadequate levels of health literacy perceived a blood pressure reading of 135/85 mmHg to be less serious compared to individuals with adequate health literacy (Mean Difference [MD]:0.21; 95%CI 0.03-0.39; p = .024; d = 0.13), and reported less motivation to eat well (MD:0.44; 95%CI 0.31-0.58; p < .001; d = 0.38) and exercise (MD:0.43; 95%CI 0.31-0.58; p < .001; d = 0.36). However, they were more willing to accept medication (MD:0.20; 95%CI 0.07-0.34; p = .004; d = 0.17). Participants with inadequate health literacy also perceived the condition to have fewer negative impacts on aspects of life and work than individuals with adequate health literacy, but reported greater negative emotion and more negative illness perceptions (all p < .001). Tailored communication and behaviour change support may be needed when communicating blood pressure information to people with lower health literacy and not at high risk of cardiovascular disease given the differential impacts on medication (increased willingness) and healthy exercise and diet behaviours (decreased willingness) observed in this study.