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.

Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide.

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.

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.

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).

Assessing and Understanding Reactance, Self-Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation and Information Conflict in Reaction to Overdiagnosis in Mammography Screening: Scale Development and Preliminary Validation.

PURPOSE: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet some people may react to overdiagnosis with doubt and skepticism. The present research assessed 4 related reactions to overdiagnosis: reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, and source derogation (REDS). The degree to which the concept of overdiagnosis conflicts with participants' prior beliefs and health messages (information conflict) was also assessed as a potential antecedent of REDS. We developed a scale to assess these reactions, evaluated how those reactions are related, and identified their potential implications for screening decision making. METHODS: Female participants aged 39 to 49 years read information about overdiagnosis in mammography screening and completed survey questions assessing their reactions to that information. We used a multidimensional theoretical framework to assess dimensionality and overall domain-specific internal consistency of the REDS and Information Conflict questions. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed using data randomly split into a training set and test set. Correlations between REDS, screening intentions, and other outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Five-hundred twenty-five participants completed an online survey. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified that Reactance, Self Exemption, Disbelief, Source Derogation, and Information Conflict represent unique constructs. A reduced 20-item scale was created by selecting 4 items per construct, which showed good model fit. Reactance, Disbelief, and Source Derogation were associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making and the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant. CONCLUSIONS: REDS and Information Conflict are distinct but correlated constructs that are common reactions to overdiagnosis. Some of these reactions may have negative implications for making informed screening decisions. HIGHLIGHTS: Overdiagnosis is a concept central to making informed breast cancer screening decisions, and yet when provided information about overdiagnosis, some people are skeptical.This research developed a measure that assessed different ways in which people might express skepticism about overdiagnosis (reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, source derogation) and also the perception that overdiagnosis conflicts with prior knowledge and health messages (information conflict).These different reactions are distinct but correlated and are common reactions when people learn about overdiagnosis.Reactance, disbelief, and source derogation are associated with lower intent to use information about overdiagnosis in decision making as well as the belief that informing people about overdiagnosis is unimportant.

Randomized Trial of the Choosing Wisely Consumer Questions and a Shared Decision-Making Video Intervention on Decision-Making Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM. RESULTS: A total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR376477. HIGHLIGHTS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

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).

Understanding the Relationship between Illness Perceptions and Health Behaviour among Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.

This paper aims to delineate the cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to their illness by applying the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM) to their health behaviour. An online cross-sectional design was used to examine the relationship between participants' illness perceptions (illness identity, consequence, timeline, control, and cause) and emotional representations of their PCOS, and their health behaviours (diet, physical activity, and risky contraceptive behaviour). The participants were 252 women between the ages of 18 and 45 years, living in Australia, and self-reporting a diagnosis of PCOS, recruited through social media. Participants completed an online questionnaire regarding illness perceptions as well as their diet, physical activity, and risky contraceptive behaviour. Illness identity was positively associated with the number of maladaptive dietary practices (B = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.003, 0.138; p = 0.04), and perception of longer illness duration was associated with reduced physical activity (OR = 0.898, 95% CI: 0.807, 0.999; p = 0.49) and risky contraceptive behaviour (OR = 0.856, 95% CI: 0.736, 0.997; p = 0.045). The limitations of the study include all data being self-reported (including PCOS diagnosis), and the potential for analyses of physical activity and risky contraceptive use being underpowered due to reduced sample sizes. The sample was also highly educated and restricted to those who use social media. These findings suggest that illness perceptions may play a role in influencing health behaviour in women with PCOS. A better understanding of the illness perceptions of women with PCOS is needed to increase health-promoting behaviour and improve health outcomes for women with PCOS.

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.

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.

Multiple Automated Health Literacy Assessments of Written Health Information: Development of the SHeLL (Sydney Health Literacy Lab) Health Literacy Editor v1.

Producing health information that people can easily understand is challenging and time-consuming. Existing guidance is often subjective and lacks specificity. With advances in software that reads and analyzes text, there is an opportunity to develop tools that provide objective, specific, and automated guidance on the complexity of health information. This paper outlines the development of the SHeLL (Sydney Health Literacy Lab) Health Literacy Editor, an automated tool to facilitate the implementation of health literacy guidelines for the production of easy-to-read written health information. Target users were any person or organization that develops consumer-facing education materials, with or without prior experience with health literacy concepts. Anticipated users included health professionals, staff, and government and nongovernment agencies. To develop this tool, existing health literacy and relevant writing guidelines were collated. Items amenable to programmable automated assessment were incorporated into the Editor. A set of natural language processing methods were also adapted for use in the SHeLL Editor, though the approach was primarily procedural (rule-based). As a result of this process, the Editor comprises 6 assessments: readability (school grade reading score calculated using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG)), complex language (percentage of the text that contains public health thesaurus entries, words that are uncommon in English, or acronyms), passive voice, text structure (eg, use of long paragraphs), lexical density and diversity, and person-centered language. These are presented as global scores, with additional, more specific feedback flagged in the text itself. Feedback is provided in real-time so that users can iteratively revise and improve the text. The design also includes a "text preparation" mode, which allows users to quickly make adjustments to ensure accurate calculation of readability. A hierarchy of assessments also helps users prioritize the most important feedback. Lastly, the Editor has a function that exports the analysis and revised text. The SHeLL Health Literacy Editor is a new tool that can help improve the quality and safety of written health information. It provides objective, immediate feedback on a range of factors, complementing readability with other less widely used but important objective assessments such as complex and person-centered language. It can be used as a scalable intervention to support the uptake of health literacy guidelines by health services and providers of health information. This early prototype can be further refined by expanding the thesaurus and leveraging new machine learning methods for assessing the complexity of the written text. User-testing with health professionals is needed before evaluating the Editor's ability to improve the health literacy of written health information and evaluating its implementation into existing Australian health services.

What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Plain language summaries (PLSs) are intended for a non-expert audience in order to make health research accessible and understandable to the public. This is important because most research is written with jargon and at a high reading level. However, there is a high degree of variability in the instructions for writing PLSs, which may impede their usefulness as a tool for communicating health research to the public. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to conduct a detailed analysis of the author instructions for PLSs provided by leading biomedical and health journals. METHOD: We screened 534 health journals covering 11 categories selected from the InCites Journal Citation Reports linked to the top 10 non-communicable diseases. We included journals published in English that recommended the inclusion of a PLS (as defined by the National Institute for Health Research) and provided authors with text-based instructions on how it should be written. Two independent reviewers extracted data pertaining to common elements identified in author instructions, such as word count/PLS length, content, structure, purpose, wording to support plain language, and the use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations. Other aspects of PLSs were recorded, such as the label used (e.g., plain language summary, lay summary, and patient summary), journal publisher, consumer involvement and whether the PLS is optional or mandatory. We recorded the frequency of each element and qualitative details of specific instructions. A consumer representative provided ongoing and iterative feedback on the methods, results, and reporting of this study RESULTS: Despite reviewing 534 journals across 10 non-communicable disease areas and 11 journal categories, we found only 27 (5.1%) contained text-based instructions for PLS. Of the 27 journals included in this review, most (70%) did not require a PLS. Approximately 70% of journals with PLS instructions included advice about the use of jargon, abbreviations, and acronyms. Only one journal recommended the use of a readability tool, however five noted that the reading level of the audience or readability of the PLS should be considered. Author instructions were highly heterogeneous between journals. There was inconsistency regarding the word count/PLS length (e.g., between 100 and 850 words), structure (e.g., paragraphs or bullet points), and varying levels of detail for other elements in the instructions. Although only one journal recommended consumer involvement in the development of PLSs, many recommended authors consult those who are not an expert in their field to review their summary prior to submission. CONCLUSION: The development of consistent author instructions could enhance the effectiveness and use of PLSs. Such instructions should be developed with consumers to ensure they met the needs of a lay non-expert audience.

Plain language summaries (PLSs) are short summaries of research articles written in clear, easy-to-understand language. This makes them a useful way of getting health research to a non-expert reader. Many journals suggest authors write a PLS with their article, but the instructions for them vary from journal to journal. The aim of this study was to review the author instructions for writing PLSs from health journals. We looked at 534 journals and only found 27 (5.1%) had a PLS aimed at a lay reader. We looked at the author instructions from these 27 journals and noted common details of a PLS. For example, we checked word count/PLS length, content, structure, and wording. We also recorded the label used, publisher and whether the PLS was required or not. We found most (70%) journals did not require a PLS. The instructions were different from journal to journal. For example, word count/PLS length ranged from 100 to 850 words and the suggested structure was a mix of paragraph format and bullet points. About 70% of journals gave advice about the use of jargon, abbreviations and acronyms. Only one journal suggested the use of a readability tool, but five thought the reading level of the reader or readability of the PLS was important. Only one journal suggested consumers be involved in writing a PLS, however many suggested the PLSs be checked by someone who is not an expert in the field. PLSs could be improved with help from consumers to make instructions that are more standard.

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.

Interventions for improving health literacy in people with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Low health literacy affects 25% of people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is associated with increased morbidity and death. Improving health literacy is a recognised priority, but effective interventions are not clear. OBJECTIVES: This review looked the benefits and harms of interventions for improving health literacy in people with CKD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 July 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched MEDLINE (OVID) and EMBASE (OVID) for non-randomised studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies that assessed interventions aimed at improving health literacy in people with CKD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed risk of bias analysis. We classified studies as either interventions aimed at improving aspects of health literacy or interventions targeting a population of people with poor health literacy. The interventions were further sub-classified in terms of the type of intervention (educational, self-management training, or educational with self-management training). Results were expressed as mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 120 studies (21,149 participants) which aimed to improve health literacy. There were 107 RCTs and 13 non-randomised studies. No studies targeted low literacy populations. For the RCTs, selection bias was low or unclear in 94% of studies, performance bias was high in 86% of studies, detection bias was high in 86% of studies reporting subjective outcomes and low in 93% of studies reporting objective outcomes. Attrition and other biases were low or unclear in 86% and 78% of studies, respectively. Compared to usual care, low certainty evidence showed educational interventions may increase kidney-related knowledge (14 RCTs, 2632 participants: SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32; I² = 94%). Data for self-care, self-efficacy, quality of life (QoL), death, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and hospitalisations could not be pooled or was not reported. Compared to usual care, low-certainty evidence showed self-management interventions may improve self-efficacy (5 RCTs, 417 participants: SMD 0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.03; I² = 74%) and QoL physical component score (3 RCTs, 131 participants: MD 4.02, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.94; I² = 0%). There was moderate-certainty evidence that self-management interventions probably did not slow the decline in eGFR after one year (3 RCTs, 855 participants: MD 1.53 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -1.41 to 4.46; I² = 33%). Data for knowledge, self-care behaviour, death and hospitalisations could not be pooled or was not reported. Compared to usual care, low-certainty evidence showed educational with self-management interventions may increase knowledge (15 RCTs, 2185 participants: SMD 0.65, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93; I² = 90%), improve self-care behaviour scores (4 RCTs, 913 participants: SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.82; I² =97%), self-efficacy (8 RCTs, 687 participants: SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.89; I² = 82%), improve QoL physical component score (3 RCTs, 2771 participants: MD 2.56, 95% CI 1.73 to 3.38; I² = 0%) and may make little or no difference to slowing the decline of eGFR (4 RCTs, 618 participants: MD 4.28 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -0.03 to 8.85; I² = 43%). Moderate-certainty evidence shows educational with self-management interventions probably decreases the risk of death (any cause) (4 RCTs, 2801 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; I² = 0%). Data for hospitalisation could not be pooled. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve aspects of health literacy are a very broad category, including educational interventions, self-management interventions and educational with self-management interventions. Overall, this type of health literacy intervention is probably beneficial in this cohort however, due to methodological limitations and high heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes, the evidence is of low certainty.

General practitioners' views and experiences of communicating with older people about cancer screening: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults should be supported to make informed decisions about cancer screening. However, it is unknown how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia communicate about cancer screening with older people. AIM: To investigate GPs' views and experiences of communicating about cancer screening (breast, cervical, prostate, and bowel) with older people (≥70 years). DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews, Australia. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with GPs practising in Australia (n = 28), recruited through practice-based research networks, primary health networks, social media, and email invitation. Interviews were audio-recorded and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Findings across GPs were organized into 3 themes: (i) varied motivation to initiate cancer screening discussions; some GPs reported that they only initiated screening within recommended ages (<75 years), others described initiating discussions beyond recommended ages, and some experienced older patient-initiated discussions; (ii) GPs described the role they played in providing screening information, whereby detailed discussions about the benefits/risks of prostate screening were more likely than other nationally funded screening types (breast, cervical, and bowel); however, some GPs had limited knowledge of recommendations and found it challenging to explain why screening recommendations have upper ages; (iii) GPs reported providing tailored advice and discussion based on personal patient preferences, overall health/function, risk of cancer, and previous screening. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to support conversations between GPs and older people about the potential benefits and harms of screening in older age and rationale for upper age limits to screening programmes may be helpful. Further research in this area is needed.

Effect of an Individualized Audit and Feedback Intervention on Rates of Musculoskeletal Diagnostic Imaging Requests by Australian General Practitioners: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Audit and feedback can improve professional practice, but few trials have evaluated its effectiveness in reducing potential overuse of musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging in general practice. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of audit and feedback for reducing musculoskeletal imaging by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This factorial cluster-randomized clinical trial included 2271 general practices with at least 1 GP who was in the top 20% of referrers for 11 imaging tests (of the lumbosacral or cervical spine, shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle/hind foot) and for at least 4 individual tests between January and December 2018. Only high-requesting GPs within participating practices were included. The trial was conducted between November 2019 and May 2021, with final follow-up on May 8, 2021. Interventions: Eligible practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 different individualized written audit and feedback interventions (n = 3055 GPs) that varied factorially by (1) frequency of feedback (once vs twice) and (2) visual display (standard vs enhanced display highlighting highly requested tests) or to a control condition of no intervention (n = 764 GPs). Participants were not masked. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the overall rate of requests for the 11 targeted imaging tests per 1000 patient consultations over 12 months, assessed using routinely collected administrative data. Primary analyses included all randomized GPs who had at least 1 patient consultation during the study period and were performed by statisticians masked to group allocation. Results: A total of 3819 high-requesting GPs from 2271 practices were randomized, and 3660 GPs (95.8%; n = 727 control, n = 2933 intervention) were included in the primary analysis. Audit and feedback led to a statistically significant reduction in the overall rate of imaging requests per 1000 consultations compared with control over 12 months (adjusted mean, 27.7 [95% CI, 27.5-28.0] vs 30.4 [95% CI, 29.8-30.9], respectively; adjusted mean difference, -2.66 [95% CI, -3.24 to -2.07]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Australian general practitioners known to frequently request musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging, an individualized audit and feedback intervention, compared with no intervention, significantly decreased the rate of targeted musculoskeletal imaging tests ordered over 12 months. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12619001503112.

Physiotherapists have some hesitations and unmet needs regarding delivery of exercise programs for low back pain prevention in adults: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Although there is some qualitative research on physiotherapists' experiences of delivering low back pain treatment, we do not know the extent that these findings apply to low back pain prevention. OBJECTIVE: To explore physiotherapists' understanding, attitudes and experiences related to delivering low back pain prevention programs. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. METHOD: Interviews from 25 Australian physiotherapists (56% female; 44% male) were analysed using framework thematic analysis. RESULTS: Theme 1 explored physiotherapists' hesitancy about 'low back pain prevention,' raising concerns this term might inadvertently entrench unhelpful beliefs. They preferred language about minimising the risk and impact of recurrences, and promoting an active lifestyle. Theme 2 emphasised that as pain receded, engaging patients could be challenging. Some discussed that person-centred care and individualised programs helped overcome this challenge. Several wanted more training in counselling skills, and more consistent external messaging about low back pain prevention. Theme 3 highlighted uncertainty about delivering high-value prevention care. Some perceived the programs as potentially placing unnecessary financial burden on some patients. Many physiotherapists were uncertain about how to support patients when they weren't in pain (i.e., remission) and wanted training in tailored exercise prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the physiotherapists had some hesitations and unmet needs regarding delivery of exercise programs for secondary prevention of low back pain. Clinicians may find it useful to ask patients directly about their interest in prevention programs and work with interested patients to develop tailored, progressive programs that continue to be motivating, even during periods when there is no pain.

COVID-19 Vaccine Misperceptions in a Community Sample of Adults Aged 18-49 Years in Australia.

Central to a successful population vaccination program is high uptake of vaccines. However, COVID-19 vaccine uptake may be impeded by beliefs based on misinformation. We sought to understand the prevalence and nature of misbeliefs about COVID-19 vaccines, and identify associated factors, shortly after commencement of Australia's national vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional survey was administered to unvaccinated young adults (n = 2050) in Australia aged 18-49 years (mean age 33 years), 13 July-21 August 2021. This sample was previously under-represented in COVID-19 research but shown to have less willingness to vaccinate. Two thirds of participants agreed with at least one misbelief item. Misperceptions about COVID-19 vaccines were found to be significantly associated with lower health literacy, less knowledge about vaccines, lower perceived personal risk of COVID-19, greater endorsement of conspiracy beliefs, and lower confidence and trust in government and scientific institutions. Misbeliefs were more common in participants with less educational attainment, in younger age groups, and in males, as per previous research. Understanding determinants and barriers to vaccination uptake, such as knowledge and beliefs based on misinformation, can help to shape effective public health communication and inform debunking efforts at this critical time and in the future.

Interventions to improve media coverage of medical research: a codesigned feasibility and acceptability study with Australian journalists.

OBJECTIVES: Although the media can influence public perceptions and utilisation of healthcare, journalists generally receive no routine training in interpreting and reporting on medical research. Given growing evidence about the problems of medical overuse, the need for quality media reporting has become a greater priority. This study aimed to codesign and assess the feasibility of a multicomponent training intervention for journalists in Australia. DESIGN: A small pragmatic feasibility study using a pre- and postdesign. SETTING: 90 min online workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Eight journalists currently working in Australia, recruited through the study's journalist advisor and existing contacts of the researchers. INTERVENTION: The training intervention covered a range of topics, including study designs, conflicts of interest, misleading medical statistics, population screening and overdiagnosis. The intervention also provided tools to help journalists with reporting, including a Tip Sheet and list of expert contacts in health and medicine. Preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires were administered via Qualtrics. MEASURES: Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and journalists' knowledge of overdiagnosis and common issues with health stories. Quantitative results were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: All participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires, and 6 completed the 6-week follow-up (75% retention). Feasibility findings suggest the intervention is acceptable and relevant to journalists, with participants indicating the workshop increased confidence with reporting on medical research. We observed increases in knowledge preworkshop to postworkshop for all knowledge measures on overdiagnosis and common issues with media coverage of medicine. Analysis of free-text responses identified several areas for improvement, such as including more examples to aid understanding of the counterintuitive topic of overdiagnosis and more time for discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Piloting suggested the multicomponent training intervention is acceptable to journalists and provided important feedback and insights to inform a future trial of the intervention's impact on media coverage of medicine.