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.

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.

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.

U.S. Adults' Public Opinion Toward R-Rating Labels for Movies With Cigarette Smoking.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to describe the proportion of U.S. adults who support, oppose, or are neutral toward a policy designating R-ratings for movies depicting cigarette smoking and to identify predictors of policy opposition or neutrality among a nationally representative sample. METHODS: Data from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4 (fielded in 2020; N=3,865) were used to estimate the prevalence of support, neutrality, and opposition to a policy designating R-ratings for movies containing depictions of cigarette smoking. Weighted, multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the predictors of policy opposition or neutrality. RESULTS: The analysis showed that 47.0% of U.S. adults were supportive, 20.3% opposed, and 30.3% were neutral toward designating R-ratings for movies depicting cigarette smoking. Older adults were significantly less likely to be neutral to or opposed to an R-rating policy than adults aged 18-34 years: age 50-64 years (OR=0.56; 95% CI=0.35, 0.87), age 65-74 years (OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.24, 0.64), and age ≥75 years (OR=0.27; 95% CI=0.16, 0.45). In addition, non-Hispanic Asians were significantly less likely than non-Hispanic Whites to be neutral to or opposed the policy (OR=0.46; 95% CI=0.25, 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings show that a near majority of U.S. adults support a policy that would designate R-ratings for movies depicting cigarette smoking and that there is greater neutrality than opposition toward the policy. Assessing public opinion toward a policy designating R-ratings for movies depicting cigarette smoking may inform efforts to educate the public about the value of such policies for preventing youth tobacco initiation.

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.

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.

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.

Missing the Bigger Picture: The Need for More Research on Visual Health Misinformation.

Research shows that health misinformation is widespread online and poses a potentially significant threat to public health. Visual misinformation has been largely overlooked, a notable gap given the unique features and ubiquity of visual content. In this essay, we (a) provide a working definition of visual misinformation, (b) summarize the main categories of visual misinformation, (c) offer examples of the functions visuals can serve within misinformation content, and (d) outline priorities for advancing research on visual misinformation. A systematic approach to studying visual misinformation can improve efforts to mitigate health misinformation and optimize science communication in the current information environment.

Factors Associated With COVID-19 Behavioral Intentions: Findings From an Online Survey.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic provides a novel context through which to evaluate salient factors for promoting behavioral change. We examined how attitudes, perceived community behaviors, and prior related behaviors predict intentions to (1) receive COVID-19 vaccination and (2) practice social distancing. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey administered through Amazon's Mechanical Turk in September 2020. SUBJECTS: A convenience sample of US adults (N = 1804). MEASURES: COVID-19 vaccination and social distancing intentions were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Predictor variables included general vaccination and social distancing attitudes, perceived community mask-wearing, prior influenza vaccination, prior social distancing, and socio-demographics. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics and linear regressions. RESULTS: Thirty percent of respondents reported a strong willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccination, while 67% strongly intended to engage in social distancing. In regression analyses, vaccination intention was predicted by positive vaccine attitudes (b = .84; 95%CI: .78, .90; P < .001), prior influenza vaccination (b = -.47; 95%CI: -.63, -.32; P < .001), and perceived community mask-wearing (b = -.28; 95%CI: -.56, -.01; P=.049). Intention to practice social distancing was predicted by positive attitudes (b = .65; 95%CI: .61, .69; P < .001), prior social distancing (b = -.49; 95%CI: -.59, -.39; P < .001), and perceived community mask-wearing (b = -.28; 95%CI: -.46, -.09; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Findings have implications for health promotion efforts. Messages that are targeted and tailored on pre-existing attitudes may be more effective. Additionally, leveraging prior behaviors and perceived community behavior may improve communication strategies.

Public Support for Cigarette Pack Pictorial Health Warnings Among US Adults: A Cross-sectional Analysis of the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey.

INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration issued a final rule requiring new warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements. This study examines population-level characteristics of support for-versus neutrality or opposition toward-cigarette pack warnings that use text and images to portray the negative health effects of smoking. METHODS: We used nationally representative cross-sectional data of US adults age 18 and older from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (n = 3865). Frequencies and weighted proportions were calculated for neutrality toward, opposition to, and support for pictorial warnings across sociodemographics and other predictors. Weighted, multivariable logistic regression examined predictors of being neutral or opposed versus supportive of pictorial warnings. RESULTS: In 2020, an estimated 69.9% of US adults supported pictorial warnings, 9.1% opposed, and 20.9% neither supported nor opposed them. In fully adjusted models, current smokers had almost twice the odds of being neutral or opposed to pictorial warnings as never smokers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.99, confidence interval [CI] 1.12, 3.52). Adults 75 years and older (vs. 18-34) (OR = 0.55, CI 0.33, 0.94) and those with children under 18 in their household (vs. no children) (OR = 0.67, CI 0.46, 0.98) were less likely to be neutral or opposed. CONCLUSIONS: In advance of the Food and Drug Administration's implementation of pictorial warnings on cigarette packages, nearly 70% of American adults support this policy. Disseminating information about the effectiveness of pictorial warnings may further strengthen support among current smokers who are less supportive than never smokers. Furthermore, framing messages around the benefits of pictorial warnings for protecting youth may increase public support. IMPLICATIONS: While public support for pictorial warnings on cigarette packages is high in the United States, it may increase further after policy implementation and be strengthened by utilizing information campaigns that convey the evidence that pictorial warnings are an effective public health strategy.

Effects of Narrative Messages on Key COVID-19 Protective Responses: Findings From a Randomized Online Experiment.

PURPOSE: We investigated the effectiveness of narrative vs non-narrative messages in changing COVID-19-related perceptions and intentions. DESIGN/SETTING: The study employed a between-subjects two-group (narratives vs non-narratives) experimental design and was administered online. SUBJECTS/INTERVENTION: 1804 U.S. adults recruited via Amazon MTurk in September 2020 were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions and read either three narrative or three non-narrative messages about social distancing, vaccination, and unproven treatments. MEASURES: Perceptions and intentions were assessed before and after message exposure (7-point scales). ANALYSIS: Using multivariable regression, we assessed main effects of the experimental condition (controlling for baseline measures) and interactions between the condition and pre-exposure perceptions/intentions in predicting post-exposure outcomes. RESULTS: Compared to non-narratives, narratives led to (1) less positive perceptions about the benefits of unproven treatments (Mnarrative = 3.60, Mnon-narrative = 3.77, P = .007); and (2) less willingness to receive an unproven drug (Mnarrative = 3.46, Mnon-narrative = 3.77, P < .001); this effect was stronger among individuals with higher baseline willingness to receive unproven drugs (baseline willingness = 2.09: b = -.06, P = .461; baseline willingness = 3.90: b = -.30, P < .001; baseline willingness = 5.71: b = -.55, P < .001). Narratives also led to more positive perceptions of vaccine safety/effectiveness, but only among individuals with lower baseline vaccine perceptions (baseline perceptions = 4.51: b = .10, P = .008; baseline perceptions = 5.89: b = .04, P = .167; baseline perceptions = 7: b = -.01, P = .688). CONCLUSION: Narratives are a promising communication strategy, particularly for topics where views are not entrenched and among individuals who are more resistant to recommendations.

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.

U.S. public opinion toward policy restrictions to limit tobacco product placement and advertising at point-of-sale and on social media.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act granted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco advertising and promotion, including at the retail level, and preserved state, tribal, and local tobacco advertising and promotion authorities. Public health experts have proposed prohibiting point-of-sale tobacco advertisements and product displays, among other tobacco advertising restrictions. We examined the prevalence and correlates of public support, opposition, and neutrality toward proposed tobacco product placement and advertising restrictions at point-of-sale and on social media utilizing the National Cancer Institute's 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) (N = 3865), a cross-sectional, probability-based postal survey of U.S. addresses conducted from Feb 24, 2020 to June 15, 2020 (Bethesda, MD). Frequencies and unadjusted, weighted proportions were calculated for support, neutrality, and opposition toward the three policies under study, and weighted, adjusted multivariable logistic regression was employed to examine predictors of neutrality and opposition. Tests of significance were conducted at the p < 0.05 level. Sixty-two percent of U.S. adults supported a policy prohibiting tobacco product advertising on social media; 55% supported a policy restricting the location of tobacco product advertising at point-of-sale; and nearly 50% supported a policy to keep tobacco products out of view at the checkout counter. Neutrality and opposition varied by sociodemographic characteristics including age, sex, education, rurality, and presence of children in the household. Understanding public opinion toward tobacco product placement and advertising restrictions may inform policy planning and implementation.

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.

Willingness to Share Data From Wearable Health and Activity Trackers: Analysis of the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Sharing data from wearable health and activity trackers (wearables) with others may improve the health and behavioral outcomes of wearable users by generating social support and improving their ability to manage their health. Investigating individual factors that influence US adults' willingness to share wearable data with different types of individuals may provide insights about the population subgroups that are most or least likely to benefit from wearable interventions. Specifically, it is necessary to identify digital health behaviors potentially associated with willingness to share wearable data given that the use of and engagement with various technologies may broadly influence web-based health information-sharing behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify sociodemographic, health, and digital health behavior correlates of US adults' willingness to share wearable data with health care providers and family or friends. METHODS: Data for the analytic sample (N=1300) were obtained from the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey of the National Cancer Institute. Digital health behavior measures included frequency of wearable device use, use of smartphones or tablets to help communicate with providers, use of social networking sites to share health information, and participation in a web-based health community. Multivariable logistic regression analysis of weighted data examined the associations between digital health behaviors and willingness to share wearable device data, controlling for sociodemographics and health-related characteristics. RESULTS: Most US adults reported willingness to share wearable data with providers (81.86%) and with family or friends (69.51%). Those who reported higher health self-efficacy (odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% CI 1.11-3.51), higher level of trust in providers as a source of health information (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.12-3.49), and higher level of physical activity (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.21-3.31) had greater odds of willingness to share data with providers. In addition, those with a higher frequency of wearable use (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.35-3.43) and those who reported use of smartphones or tablets to help communicate with providers (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.09-3.63) had greater odds of willingness to share data with providers. Only higher level of physical activity was associated with greater odds of willingness to share wearable data with family or friends (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.84). Sociodemographic factors were not significantly associated with willingness to share wearable data. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that, among US adult wearable users, behavior-related factors, rather than sociodemographic characteristics, are key drivers of willingness to share health information obtained from wearables with others. Moreover, behavioral correlates of willingness to share wearable data are unique to the type of recipient (ie, providers vs family or friends). Future studies could use these findings to inform the development of interventions that aim to improve the use of patient-generated data from wearable devices in health care settings.

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.