Perceptions of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Health misinformation on social media can negatively affect knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, undermining clinical care and public health efforts. Therefore, it is vital to better understand the public's experience with health misinformation on social media. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this analysis was to examine perceptions of the social media information environment and identify associations between health misinformation perceptions and health communication behaviors among US adults. METHODS: Analyses used data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey (N=6252). Weighted unadjusted proportions described respondents' perceptions of the amount of false or misleading health information on social media ("perceived misinformation amount") and how difficult it is to discern true from false information on social media ("perceived discernment difficulty"). Weighted multivariable logistic regressions examined (1) associations of sociodemographic characteristics and subjective literacy measures with misinformation perceptions and (2) relationships between misinformation perceptions and health communication behaviors (ie, sharing personal or general health information on social media and using social media information in health decisions or in discussions with health care providers). RESULTS: Over one-third of social media users (35.61%) perceived high levels of health misinformation, and approximately two-thirds (66.56%) reported high perceived discernment difficulty. Odds of perceiving high amounts of misinformation were lower among non-Hispanic Black/African American (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.407, 95% CI 0.282-0.587) and Hispanic (aOR 0.610, 95% CI 0.449-0.831) individuals compared to White individuals. Those with lower subjective health literacy were less likely to report high perceived misinformation amount (aOR 0.602, 95% CI 0.374-0.970), whereas those with lower subjective digital literacy were more likely to report high perceived misinformation amount (aOR 1.775, 95% CI 1.400-2.251). Compared to White individuals, Hispanic individuals had lower odds of reporting high discernment difficulty (aOR 0.620, 95% CI 0.462-0.831). Those with lower subjective digital literacy (aOR 1.873, 95% CI 1.478-2.374) or numeracy (aOR 1.465, 95% CI 1.047-2.049) were more likely to report high discernment difficulty. High perceived misinformation amount was associated with lower odds of sharing general health information on social media (aOR 0.742, 95% CI 0.568-0.968), using social media information to make health decisions (aOR 0.273, 95% CI 0.156-0.479), and using social media information in discussions with health care providers (aOR 0.460, 95% CI 0.323-0.655). High perceived discernment difficulty was associated with higher odds of using social media information in health decisions (aOR 1.724, 95% CI 1.208-2.460) and health care provider discussions (aOR 1.389, 95% CI 1.035-1.864). CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of high health misinformation prevalence and discernment difficulty are widespread among social media users, and each has unique associations with sociodemographic characteristics, literacy, and health communication behaviors. These insights can help inform future health communication interventions.

Mitigating Health and Science Misinformation: A Scoping Review of Literature from 2017 to 2022.

Literature on how to address misinformation has rapidly expanded in recent years. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesize the growing published literature on health and science misinformation mitigation interventions. English-language articles published from January 2017 to July 2022 were included. After title/abstract screening, 115 publications (148 empirical studies) met inclusion criteria and were coded for sample characteristics, topics, mitigation strategies, research methods, outcomes, and intervention efficacy. A marked increase in misinformation mitigation research was observed in 2020-2022. COVID-19, vaccines, and climate change were the most frequently addressed topics. Most studies used general population samples recruited online; few focused on populations most vulnerable to misinformation. Most studies assessed cognitive outcomes (e.g., knowledge), with fewer assessing health behavior, communication behavior, or skills. Correction (k = 97) was the most used misinformation mitigation strategy, followed by education and other literacy initiatives (k = 39) and prebunking/inoculation (k = 24). Intervention efficacy varied, with 76 studies reporting positive, 17 reporting null, and 68 reporting mixed results. Most misinformation mitigation interventions were limited to short-term online experiments focused on improving cognitive outcomes. Priority research areas going forward include expanding and diversifying study samples, scaling interventions, conducting longitudinal observations, and focusing on communities susceptible to misinformation.

Contributions to Research and Practice Made by the National Cancer Institute's Health Communication and Informatics Research Branch.

The Health Communication and Informatics Research Branch at the U.S. National Cancer Institute was founded in 1999 in response to increasing evidence demonstrating a link between effective health communication and improved cancer-related outcomes and in recognition of the rapid and dramatic technological changes that were transforming health communication at the turn of the 21st century. For the past 25 years, the Health Communication and Informatics Research Branch has been conducting and supporting research at the forefront of emerging cancer communication trends and technologies, making numerous contributions to health communication science, public health, and cancer control practice. In this essay, we provide a brief history of the branch and the context that led to its establishment, discuss contributions made by the branch to health communication research and practice through key projects and initiatives, and conclude by highlighting health communication and informatics research priorities that offer opportunities for significant impact going forward in light of the challenges posed by the current communication environment.

Health Information in 2023 (and Beyond): Confronting Emergent Realities With Health Communication Science.

This Viewpoint describes how health communication science can be used to improve response to health challenges by providing credible health information to the public.

Using Behavioral Science to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Among Cancer Survivors: Communication Strategies and Research Opportunities.

Due to cancer survivors' increased vulnerability to complications from COVID-19, addressing vaccine hesitancy and improving vaccine uptake among this population is a public health priority. However, several factors may complicate efforts to increase vaccine confidence in this population, including the underrepresentation of cancer patients in COVID-19 vaccine trials and distinct recommendations for vaccine administration and timing for certain subgroups of survivors. Evidence suggests vaccine communication efforts targeting survivors could benefit from strategies that consider factors such as social norms, risk perceptions, and trust. However, additional behavioral research is needed to help the clinical and public health community better understand, and more effectively respond to, drivers of vaccine hesitancy among survivors and ensure optimal protection against COVID-19 for this at-risk population. Knowledge generated by this research could also have an impact beyond the current COVID-19 pandemic by informing future vaccination efforts and communication with cancer survivors more broadly.

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.

An Overview of Innovative Approaches to Support Timely and Agile Health Communication Research and Practice.

Innovative approaches are needed to make health communication research and practice more timely, responsive, and effective in a rapidly changing information ecosystem. In this paper we provide an overview of strategies that can enhance the delivery and effectiveness of health communication campaigns and interventions, as well as research approaches that can generate useful data and insights for decisionmakers and campaign designers, thereby reducing the research-to-practice gap. The discussion focuses on the following approaches: digital segmentation and microtargeting, social media influencer campaigns, recommender systems, adaptive interventions, A/B testing, efficient message testing protocols, rapid cycle iterative message testing, megastudies, and agent-based modeling. For each method highlighted, we also outline important practical and ethical considerations for utilizing the approach in the context of health communication research and practice, including issues related to transparency, privacy, equity, and potential for harm.

Correction: Access to Electronic Personal Health Records Among Patients With Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Secondary Data Analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: .].

Cancer clinical trial providers' perspectives on communicating goals of care: A key informant study.

Objectives: There has been limited research to date exploring provider communication in the context of cancer clinical trials. To elucidate multidisciplinary care providers' experiences, this qualitative study sought to understand their perspectives and communication patterns around goals of care discussions with patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials. Methods: Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of physicians, nurse practitioners, social workers, chaplains, nurses, and administrative staff in a cancer research hospital (N=19). Data were analyzed and interpreted using thematic analysis. Results: Providers hold varied perspectives on goals of care in cancer clinical trials, highlighting the tension and potential for misalignment between scientific and clinical (patient-centered) goals. Inherent institutional hierarchies may impede some team members from initiating goal discussions. Care transitions (e.g., stopping treatment or initiating hospice) offer critical opportunities for goals of care discussions. Conclusion: Conflicting perspectives among team members, perceptions of provider roles, and communication patterns could help explain some of the communication challenges previously documented in advanced cancer and clinical trial care. Innovation: This qualitative study contributes to the literature on healthcare team communication in the clinical trial context and highlights tangible opportunities to better leverage providers' diverse experience and improve patient-centered care.

Factors Associated with Cancer Message Believability: a Mixed Methods Study on Simulated Facebook Posts.

The ability to share and obtain health information on social media (SM) places higher burden on individuals to evaluate the believability of such health messages given the growing nature of misinformation circulating on SM. Message features (i.e., format, veracity), message source, and an individual's health literacy all play significant roles in how a person evaluates health messages on SM. This study assesses how message features and SM users' health literacy predict assessment of message believability and time spent looking at simulated Facebook messages. SM users (N = 53) participated in a mixed methods experimental study, using eye-tracking technology, to measure relative time and message believability. Measures included individual health literacy, message format (narrative/non-narrative), and information veracity (evidence-based/non-evidence-based). Results showed individuals with adequate health literacy rated evidence-based posts as more believable than non-evidence-based posts. Additionally, individuals with limited health literacy spent more relative time on the source compared to individuals with adequate health literacy. Public health and health communication efforts should focus on addressing myths and misinformation found on SM. Additionally, the source of message may be equally important when evaluating messages on SM, and strategies should identify reliable sources to prevent limited health literate individuals from falling prey to misinformation.

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.

Behavioral and social science in support of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: National Institutes of Health initiatives.

Control of the COVID-19 pandemic relies heavily on behavioral mitigation strategies such as physical distancing, hand washing and mask wearing. Even with the availability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, the extraordinary effort to distribute the vaccines must be paired with continued adherence to behavioral recommendations as well as vaccine confidence. To facilitate rapid and equitable uptake of the vaccines, there is a need for responsive, trustworthy, and evidence-informed communication about vaccination, enhanced trust in science, and engaging populations disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Efforts to address vaccine hesitancy and increase vaccine confidence will address the emerging gaps between vaccine availability and actual vaccination. Although these gaps are attributable, in part, to challenges with logistics and access, social and behavioral drivers of vaccination decision making also have a significant role in vaccination uptake. As federal, state, and local health and public health agencies coordinate vaccine dissemination, there will be a continuous need to adapt to an evolving landscape of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, new scientific information, and the spread of COVID-19- and vaccine-related misinformation. Facilitating widespread vaccination and maintaining a focus on equity requires thoughtful and compassionate approaches to reach and address the needs of those who are disproportionately affected by the pandemic such as underserved, vulnerable, and racial/ethnic minority populations. This commentary focuses on several National Institutes of Health initiatives that are supporting behavioral and social science research to address SARS-CoV-2 vaccine communication and increase the uptake of vaccination. We conclude with implications for future research.