Effects of Exposure to Conflicting Health Information on Topic-Specific Information Sharing and Seeking Intentions.

Despite considerable evidence that exposure to conflicting health information can have undesirable effects on outcomes including public understanding about and trust in health recommendations, comparatively little is known about whether such exposure influences intentions to engage in two communication behaviors central to public health promotion: information sharing and information seeking. The purpose of the current study is to test whether exposure to conflicting information influences intentions to share and seek information about six health topics. We analyzed data from two waves of a longitudinal survey experiment with a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (N = 3,920). Participants were randomly assigned to either a conflict or no-conflict message condition, in which they read news stories and social media posts about three (of six) randomly selected health topics at Time 1 and the remaining three at Time 2. The dependent variables, which were measured at Time 2, asked participants whether they intended to share or seek information about the three topics they had just viewed. Linear mixed effects models showed that exposure to conflict reduced intentions to share and seek information, regardless of health topic. These findings suggest that exposure to conflicting health information discourages two important types of health information engagement, thus adding to the growing evidence base documenting the adverse consequences of conflicting information for public health.

Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women. METHODS: We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms. RESULTS: Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

Polarized Perspectives on Health Equity: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey on U.S. Public Perceptions of COVID-19 Disparities in 2023.

Republicans and Democrats responded in starkly different ways to the COVID-19 pandemic, from their attitudes in 2020 about whether the virus posed a threat to whether the pandemic ended in 2023. The consequences of COVID-19 for health equity has been a central concern in public health, and the concept of health equity has also been beset by partisan polarization. In this essay, we present and discuss nationally-representative survey data from 2023 on U.S. public perceptions of disparities in COVID-19 mortality (building on a multi-wave previous survey effort), as well as causal attributions for racial disparities, the contribution of structural racism, and broader attitudes about public health authority. We find anticipated gulfs in perspectives between Democrats on the one hand, and Independents and Republicans on the other. The results offer a somewhat pessimistic view on the likelihood of finding common ground in how the general public understands health inequities or the role of structural racism in perpetuating them. However, we show that those who acknowledge racial disparities in COVID-19 are more likely to support state public health authority to act for other infectious disease threats. We explore the implications of these public opinion data for advocacy, communication, and future needed research.

Effects of exposure to media messages about limiting breast cancer screening: A qualitative experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: Examine how women aged 35-50 respond to messages about limiting cancer screening. METHODS: A national sample of women aged 35-50 (n = 983) were randomly assigned to read one of four media vignettes: three provided information about potential harms of mammograms using evidence, norms, or an anecdote strategy, and one provided no such information. Participants listed thoughts they had about the message, and after coding these themes, we tested for associations between the themes evoked, message exposure, and mammogram history. RESULTS: Thematic categories included emotions (8 %); behavioral intentions (14 %); and cognitions, attitudes, and beliefs (67 %). Pro-screening attitudes, questioning, and cues to get screened were most prevalent. The anecdote message often elicited pro-screening attitudes, while the evidence message often elicited negative emotions and anger, as well as questioning or skeptical responses. Those with a history of mammograms expressed more pro-screening attitudes and disagreed with the message more often. CONCLUSIONS: Media messaging about guideline-supported care, especially when it involves reducing a clinical service that is routine and valued by patients, may evoke counterarguing, skepticism, and other negative responses. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians should recognize the role of the media in potentially shaping women's attitudes, beliefs, and intentions when it comes to breast cancer screening.

Sustaining positive perceptions of science in the face of conflicting health information: An experimental test of messages about the process of scientific discovery.

BACKGROUND: The public is often exposed to conflicting health information, with evidence of concerning consequences, yet little attention has been paid to identifying strategies that can mitigate its effects. OBJECTIVE: The current study tests whether three different approaches to communicating about the process of scientific discovery-a rational appeal using analogical evidence, a rational appeal using testimonial evidence, and a logic-based inoculation approach-could reduce the adverse effects of exposure to conflict by positively framing how people construe the scientific process, increasing their perceived knowledge about the scientific process, and helping them to respond to critiques about the scientific process, which, in turn, might make them less apt to counterargue the science they subsequently encounter in health news stories and other exposures to conflict. METHODS: We fielded a survey experiment in May 2022 with a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1604). RESULTS: Providing any of the three messages about science prior to exposure to conflicting health information encouraged both positive construal of science and greater science knowledge perceptions and discouraged counterarguing science, compared to a control condition in which people were only exposed to conflict. Of the three messaging approaches tested, the testimonial evidence message was slightly more effective, but was also considered slightly more accurate, credible, and trustworthy. CONCLUSIONS: Developing and implementing messages that describe the process of scientific discovery could prove successful, not only in improving public perceptions of science but perhaps ultimately in better equipping people to make sense of conflicting information and its causes. However, additional research on such strategies is needed, particularly as part of larger interventions with multiple messages across multiple exposures, if they are to have implications for health and science communication.

A UVR-sensor wearable device intervention to reduce sun exposure in melanoma survivors: Results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma survivors are at increased risk of developing a second primary melanoma; however, some report sub-optimal sun behaviors and sunburns. We tested the effectiveness of a wearable device with ultraviolet radiation (UVR)-sensing technology to improve sun behaviors and reduce sunburns in cutaneous melanoma survivors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial using Shade 2, a commercially available wrist device that measures UVR. The intervention group received the device and mobile application notifications about their exposure and prompts to use sunscreen. The control group received the device and a separate research mobile application without information about their exposure or notifications. Participants wore the device for 12 weeks and self-reported sun behaviors before, during, and after the intervention. The primary outcome was a composite score of sun protection behaviors at week 12. RESULTS: 386 participants were randomized (186 control, 182 intervention). Most were female and 5+ years past their first melanoma diagnosis. The average age was 56 years. Most (93%) completed the study, though 40% experienced device issues. No meaningful differences were observed in self-reported sun protection behaviors at week 12 (controls 3.0±0.5 vs. intervention 2.9±0.5, p = 0.06), any sunburn during the intervention period (controls 14.4% vs. intervention 12.7%, p = 0.75), or average daily objective UVR exposure (controls median 87 vs. intervention 83 J/m2, p = 0.43). CONCLUSION: Wearing a device that measured and alerted melanoma survivors to UVR exposure did not result in different sun behaviors, exposure, or sunburns relative to controls. The technology needs refinement before further attempts to assess the effectiveness of self-monitoring UVR exposure. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03927742.

Vulnerability to the Effects of Conflicting Health Information: Testing the Moderating Roles of Trust in News Media and Research Literacy.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to conflicting health information can produce negative affective and cognitive responses, including confusion and backlash, and the effects of this exposure can even "carry over" and reduce people's receptivity to subsequent messages about health behaviors for which there is scientific consensus. What is not known is whether certain population subgroups are more vulnerable to such carryover effects. AIMS: This study investigates whether carryover effects of exposure to conflicting information are moderated by two factors, trust in news media and research literacy, testing the hypothesis that lower trust and higher literacy could protect against such effects. METHOD: The analysis draws on data from a longitudinal population-based experiment (N = 2,716), in which participants were randomly assigned to view health news stories and social media posts that either did or did not feature conflicting information, and subsequently exposed to ads from existing health campaigns about behaviors for which there is scientific consensus. Structural equation modeling was used to test study hypotheses. RESULTS: Neither lower trust in news media nor higher research literacy protected against carryover effects, as effects were observed across levels of both trust and literacy. Although level of research literacy did not affect whether carryover effects were observed, it did shape how those effects emerged. CONCLUSION: The public, regardless of their level of trust in news media or research literacy, is vulnerable to the downstream effects of exposure to conflicting health information. Targeted health communication interventions are needed to improve messaging about evolving science and, in turn, increase receptivity to public health recommendations.

Prevalence and Potential Consequences of Exposure to Conflicting Information about Mammography: Results from Nationally-Representative Survey of U.S. Adults.

As scientific evidence evolves and clinical guidelines change, a certain amount of conflicting health information in the news media is to be expected. However, research is needed to better understand the public's level of exposure to conflicting health information and the possible consequences of such exposure. This study quantifies levels of public exposure to one paradigmatic case: conflicting information about breast cancer screening for women in their 40s. Using a nationally-representative survey of U.S. adults aged 18-59 in 2016, we implemented four distinct types of measures of exposure to conflicting mammography information: an ecological measure based on keyword counts of local news closed-captioning, an inferred exposure measure based on a series of knowledge questions, a thought-listing exercise where respondents described their perceptions of mammography without prompting, and an explicit measure of self-assessed exposure to conflict. We examined the relationship between these exposure measures and four outcomes: confusion about mammography, backlash toward mammography recommendations, and confusion and backlash about health information more generally. We found moderate amounts of exposure to conflicting information about mammography, more among women than men. Exposure to conflicting information - across multiple measures - was associated with more confusion about mammography, more mammography-related backlash, and general health information backlash, but not general confusion about health information. These observational findings corroborate experimental-based findings that suggest potentially undesirable effects of exposure to conflicting health information. More research is needed to better understand how to mitigate these possible outcomes, in the context of a media landscape that proliferates exposure to multiple scientific perspectives.

Effects of Exposure to Conflicting Information About Mammography on Cancer Information Overload, Perceived Scientists' Credibility, and Perceived Journalists' Credibility.

Conflicting recommendations about mammography screening have received ample media coverage, emphasizing scientists' debate over the value of breast cancer screening and differences in professional organizations' guidelines about the appropriate starting age and frequency of routine mammograms. Whereas past research suggests that exposure to such media coverage of conflicting recommendations can have undesirable consequences, both on topic-specific (e.g., ambivalence about mammography) and more general outcomes (e.g., backlash toward cancer prevention recommendations), experimental evidence, especially for effects on more general health cognitions, is limited. Using data from a population-based sample of U.S. women aged 35-55 years (N = 1467), the current study experimentally tested whether exposure to news stories that varied in the level of conflict about mammography (no, low, medium, and high conflict) affected three general health cognitions-cancer information overload (CIO), perceived scientists' credibility, and perceived journalists' credibility. We further tested whether these effects varied by research literacy. Results showed that exposure to conflict increased women's perceived CIO and reduced their perceptions of journalists' credibility, and that these effects tapered off at higher levels of conflict. Exposure to conflict also reduced perceptions of scientists' credibility, but only among participants with lower levels of research literacy. Directions for future research and implications for mitigating these potentially adverse effects on public health are discussed.

Americans' perceptions of health disparities over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from three nationally-representative surveys.

COVID-19 has illuminated health inequity in the United States. The burdens of disease are much higher among Black and Indigenous people and other people of color. Disparities by income are also profound, as lower-wage workers were less able to adopt mitigating behaviors compared to higher-income counterparts. These disparities became part of public health discourse in 2020, with commentators frequently highlighting the connection between racism, socioeconomic position, and COVID-19. But what proportion of the public-and among key subgroups-recognized these social group disparities, relative to disparities associated with age and chronic illness, and did public recognition change over the first year of the pandemic? To address these questions, we analyzed data from three nationally-representative cross-sectional public opinion surveys, collected using the NORC AmeriSpeak panel in April 2020 (N = 1007), August 2020 (N = 2716), and April 2021 (N = 1020). The key outcomes were respondents' agreement with statements about disparities in COVID-19 mortality by age, chronic illness, income, and race. We found little change from 2020 to 2021 in Americans' recognition of disparities. At all three time points, most respondents acknowledged age and chronic illness disparities, while no more than half at any time point recognized income- and race-based disparities. Political party affiliation was not statistically associated with agreement with age or illness-related disparities, but was strongly associated with views about income- and race-based disparities. Efforts to promote recognition of racial and socioeconomic health disparities in the United States need to be mindful of the ways in which public understanding of health inequities is linked to partisanship.

Effects of politicized media coverage: Experimental evidence from the HPV vaccine and COVID-19.

Although concerns about politicization of health and science are not new, the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified attention to how political disagreement over scientific guidelines and recommendations might influence attitudes and behaviors about the health topics in question and might even spill or carry over to affect other attitudes important to public health. The literature employs differing definitions of politicization-at times referring to controversy in the public sphere, at others referring to the exploitation of the uncertainty inherent in science, and at still others referring to whether the issue enters political discourse-all of which are viewed as distinct dimensions by the public. What is not known is how these different aspects of politicization influence public attitudes about the health topics and or broader attitudes about scientific guidelines, and-assuming adverse effects-what strategies might be effective at mitigating the consequences. This paper draws on a survey experiment of 3012U.S. respondents fielded in summer 2020 that was designed as a pilot study to assess the effects of different dimensions of politicization. Findings do not suggest that one type of politicization is necessarily more pernicious than the others. In fact, all types of politicization increased negative emotional responses and confusion, both with respect to the health topic in question (HPV vaccine and COVID-19) but also on other domains, although opinions about policy were unaffected. The findings also suggest that inoculation may have potential as a messaging strategy for blunting the adverse effects of exposure to politicization.

Effects of Prior Exposure to Conflicting Health Information on Responses to Subsequent Unrelated Health Messages: Results from a Population-Based Longitudinal Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that exposure to conflicting health information can adversely affect public understanding of and trust in health recommendations. What is not known is whether prior exposure to such information renders people less receptive to subsequent unrelated health messages about behaviors for which the evidence is clear and consistent. PURPOSE: This study tests this "carryover" effects hypothesis, positing that prior exposure to conflict will reduce receptivity to subsequent unrelated health messages, and examines potential affective and cognitive pathways through which such effects might occur. METHODS: A three-wave, online, population-based survey experiment (N = 2,716) assessed whether participants who were randomly assigned to view a series of health news stories and social media posts featuring conflict at Times 1 and 2 were ultimately less receptive at Time 3 to ads from existing health campaigns about behaviors for which there is scientific consensus, compared to those who saw the same series of stories and posts that did not feature conflict. RESULTS: Structural equation modeling revealed evidence of carryover effects of exposure to conflict on two dimensions of message receptivity: greater resistance to the unrelated ads and lower perceptions of the health behaviors featured in the ads. Modeling indicated that carryover effects were a function of generalized backlash toward health recommendations and research elicited by prior exposure to conflicting information. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the broader public information environment, which is increasingly characterized by messages of conflict and controversy, could undermine the success of large-scale public health messaging strategies.

Personalized Cancer Medicine in the Media: Sensationalism or Realistic Reporting?

BACKGROUND: Given that media coverage can shape healthcare expectations, it is essential that we understand how the media frames "personalized medicine" (PM) in oncology, and whether information about unproven technologies is widely disseminated. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of 396 news reports related to cancer and PM published between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2011. Two coders independently coded all the reports using a pre-defined framework. Determination of coverage of "standard" and "non-standard" therapies and tests was made by comparing the media print/broadcast date to the date of Federal Drug Administration approval or incorporation into clinical guidelines. RESULTS: Although the term "personalized medicine" appeared in all reports, it was clearly defined only 27% of the time. Stories more frequently reported PM benefits than challenges (96% vs. 48%, p < 0.001). Commonly reported benefits included improved treatment (89%), prediction of side effects (30%), disease risk prediction (33%), and lower cost (19%). Commonly reported challenges included high cost (28%), potential for discrimination (29%), and concerns over privacy and regulation (21%). Coverage of inherited DNA testing was more common than coverage of tumor testing (79% vs. 25%, p < 0.001). Media reports of standard tests and treatments were common; however, 8% included information about non-standard technologies, such as experimental medications and gene therapy. CONCLUSION: Confusion about personalized cancer medicine may be exacerbated by media reports that fail to clearly define the term. While most media stories reported on standard tests and treatments, an emphasis on the benefits of PM may lead to unrealistic expectations for cancer genomic care.

Predictors of Women's Awareness of the Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening and Associations with Confusion, Ambivalence, and Information Seeking.

In recent years, there has been a shift toward promoting informed decision making for mammography screening for average-risk women in their 40s. Professional organizations such as the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommend that women weigh the potential benefits and harms of mammography prior to initiating screening. This decision-making process assumes that women are aware of both the benefits and harms of screening, yet little is known about the prevalence and antecedents of such awareness. Moreover, it is conceivable that women who are aware of both the benefits and harms may interpret this information as conflicting - which could be concerning, as researchers have documented adverse effects of exposure to conflicting health information in prior research. Using data from a population-based survey of U.S. women aged 30-59 (N = 557), the current study found that awareness of mammography's harms is relatively low compared to awareness of benefits. Health news exposure and interpersonal communication about health were associated with greater awareness of harms. In addition, women's awareness of both the benefits and harms was positively associated with confusion about breast cancer screening recommendations, ambivalence about getting a mammogram, and mammogram-related information seeking from online sources. Implications for cancer screening communication are discussed.

Effects of culturally tailored smoking prevention and cessation messages on urban American Indian youth.

American Indians (AI) face significant disparities in smoking-related diseases. In addition, smoking prevalence increases exponentially between ages 11 and 18. Smoking prevention and cessation efforts aimed at AI youth therefore are important. In order to strengthen understanding of evidence-based message strategies for smoking prevention and cessation among AI youth. The objective of this study was to test whether a message that was tailored to AI cultural values associated with the sacredness of traditional tobacco can change variables that behavioral theories have identified as predictors of smoking (i.e., instrumental and experiential attitudes, injunctive and descriptive norms, perceived capacity and autonomy, and intention with respect to smoking). We conducted a randomized field experiment among 300 never-smoking and ever-smoking urban AI youth in Minneapolis-Saint Paul between May 18 and July 27, 2019. We used a 3 (message condition: cultural benefits of not smoking cigarettes, health benefits of not smoking cigarettes, comparison message about benefits of healthy eating) × 2 (smoking status: ever-smoked, never-smoked) between-subjects design. Multivariate analysis of variance showed that for ever-smokers, the cultural consequences of smoking message significantly lowered instrumental attitude (partial eta2 = 0.029), experiential attitude (partial eta2 = 0.041), perceived capacity (partial eta2 = 0.051), and smoking intention (partial eta2 = 0.035) compared to the healthy eating comparison message and the health consequences of smoking message. This was not observed among never-smokers, who already had very negative smoking perceptions. We conclude that messages that tailor to AI culture may be effective tools for discouraging smoking among AI youth.

UVR-sensor wearable device intervention to improve sun behaviors and reduce sunburns in melanoma survivors: study protocol of a parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who have been diagnosed with melanoma have more than a 9-fold increased risk of developing another melanoma. Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure following a melanoma diagnosis can be modified to reduce risk of a new melanoma diagnosis. Yet research shows that many melanoma survivors do not report optimal sun protection practices. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a UVR-sensor wearable device to improve sun protection behaviors and reduce sunburns in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in melanoma survivors. METHODS: We will conduct an RCT among 368 melanoma survivors in two waves (Summer 2020, Summer 2021). This approach allows for adequate recruitment of the required sample and potential improvements to recruitment, compliance, and retention strategies between waves. The intervention includes an informational brochure about sun protection behaviors and a commercially available UVR-sensor wearable device (Shade), which accurately measures UVR. The device, along with its associated mobile application, measures and stores UVR exposure. As UVR exposure accumulates, the device provides notifications to increase sun protection action. Survivors in the control group receive the device and a separate mobile application that does not provide notifications or summary UVR exposure data. Participants will be asked to wear the device for 12 weeks. They will complete surveys about their sun behaviors at study entry, every 4 weeks during the intervention, and 1 year later. At the end of the intervention period, intervention and control groups will be compared for differences in a summary measure of sun protection habits and experience of a sunburn. We will also measure self-reported physical activity, depression, and anxiety to examine potential unintended negative consequences of the intervention. DISCUSSION: The study intervention will be completed Fall 2021, with anticipated results available in 2022. If this intervention improves sun protection behaviors in melanoma survivors, these findings would support expanding the use of this technology with other populations at high risk for melanoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03927742 . Registered on April 15, 2019.

Public perceptions of conflicting information surrounding COVID-19: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults.

Conflicting information surrounding COVID-19 abounds, from disagreement over the effectiveness of face masks in preventing viral transmission to competing claims about the promise of certain treatments. Despite the potential for conflicting information about COVID-19 to produce adverse public health effects, little is known about whether the U.S. public notices this information, and whether certain population subgroups are particularly likely to do so. To address these questions, we fielded a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults in late April 2020 (N = 1,007). Results showed substantial self-reported exposure to conflicting information about COVID-19, with nearly 75% of participants reporting having recently heard such information from health experts, politicians, and/or others. Participants perceived disagreement across a range of COVID-19-related issues, though from politicians more than health experts. Factors including political affiliation, information source use, and personal experience with COVID-19 were associated with perceptions of disagreement. Future research should consider potential cognitive and behavioral consequences of such perceptions.

Americans' perceptions of disparities in COVID-19 mortality: Results from a nationally-representative survey.

As with many other infectious and chronic conditions, the COVID-19 crisis in the United States (U.S.) reveals severe inequities in health. The objective of this study was to describe public perceptions of disparities in mortality from COVID-19 and examine correlates of those perceptions. We fielded a nationally-representative survey in late April 2020, asking participants how much they agreed with four statements describing group-level COVID-19 disparities: older people compared to younger, people with chronic health conditions compared to those without, poorer people compared to wealthier, and Black people compared to white people. We also measured personal characteristics, experience with COVID-19, and information sources. Overall agreement with age- and health condition-related disparities was high (>80%) while agreement with socioeconomic (SES) and racial disparities was lower (52%). Higher education and income were generally associated with greater agreement with disparities. Partisanship and information sources used were associated with perceptions of SES- and racial-disparities, with Democrats and those attune to national news-but not Fox cable news-more likely to perceive these disparities. As of April 2020, information about age- and health condition-related disparities in COVID-19 was well known by the U.S. public, while information about social disparities was less recognized and varied along socioeconomic and partisan lines.

The Emergence of COVID-19 in the US: A Public Health and Political Communication Crisis.

The coronavirus public health crisis is also a political-communication and health-communication crisis. In this article, the authors describe the key communication-related phenomena and evidence of concerning effects manifested in the United States during the initial response to the pandemic. The authors outline the conditions of communication about coronavirus that contribute to deleterious outcomes, including partisan cueing, conflicting science, downplayed threats, emotional arousal, fragmented media, and Trump's messaging. The authors suggest these have contributed to divergent responses by media sources, partisan leaders, and the public alike, leading to different attitudes and beliefs as well as varying protective actions taken by members of the public to reduce their risk. In turn, these divergent communication phenomena will likely amplify geographic variation in and inequities with COVID-19 disease outcomes. The authors conclude with some suggestions for future research, particularly surrounding communication about health inequity and strategies for reducing partisan divergence in views of public health issues in the future.