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.

Invoking Identity? Partisan Polarization in Discussions of Race, Racism, and Gender in 2022 Midterm Advertising in the U.S.

CONTEXT: Media messaging matters for public opinion and policy, and analyzing patterns of campaign strategy can provide important windows into policy priorities. METHODS: We used content analysis supplemented with keyword-based text analysis to assess the volume, proportion and distribution of attention to race-related issues in comparison to gender-related issues during the general election period of the 2022 midterm campaigns for federal office. FINDINGS: Race-related mentions were overwhelmingly focused on crime and law and order with very little attention to racism, racial injustice, and the structural barriers that lead to widespread inequities. In stark contrast to mentions of gender, racial appeals were less identity focused and were competitively contested between the parties in their messaging, but much more likely to be led by Republicans. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that discussion of race and gender were highly polarized with consequences for public understanding of and belief in disparities and policies important to population health.

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.

Unintended consequences of disseminating behavioral health evidence to policymakers: Results from a survey-based experiment.

Background: Communication research demonstrates that messages often have unintended consequences, but this work has received limited attention in implementation science. This dissemination experiment sought to determine whether state-tailored policy briefs about the behavioral health consequences of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), compared to national policy briefs on the topic, increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of the policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs, and whether effects differed between Democrats and Republicans. Method: A preregistered, web-based survey experiment with U.S. state legislators/staffers was conducted in 2021 (n = 133). Respondents were randomized to view a policy brief about the behavioral health consequences of ACEs that included state-tailored data (intervention condition) or national data (control condition) and then answered survey questions. Dependent variables were perceived policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs. Results: The mean policy brief relevance score was 4.1% higher in the intervention than in the control condition (p = .24), but the mean parental blame score was 16.5% higher (p = .02). When outcomes were dichotomized, 61.2% of respondents in the intervention condition rated parents as "very much to blame" for the consequences of ACEs compared to 37.1% in the control condition (p = .01). When the sample was stratified by political affiliation, the effect of the state-tailored policy brief on parental blame was larger in magnitude among Democrats and not significant among Republicans. The intervention policy brief increased the mean parental blame score by 22.8% among Democrats relative to the control policy brief (p = .007) and doubled the proportion rating parents as "very much to blame" (52.2% vs. 26.1%, p = .03). Conclusions: Despite limited statistical power, state-tailored policy briefs significantly increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of parental blame for the behavioral health consequences of ACEs, relative to a policy brief with national data. Unintended messaging effects warrant greater attention in dissemination research and practice.

Prior studies have tested the effects of dissemination strategies on policymakers' engagement with research evidence. However, little research has assessed the potential unintended consequences of disseminating evidence to policymakers. This knowledge gap is important because a large body of communication research has found that messages often have negative and unintended effects. This paper adds to the literature on disseminating evidence about behavioral health issues to policymakers. A web-based survey experiment was conducted in which U.S. state legislators/staffers were randomized to view a policy brief about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) that was tailored to present data from their state (intervention condition) or a policy brief that presented national data and then completed a survey. Legislators/staffers who viewed the state-tailored policy brief perceived the brief as slightly more relevant, but also rated parents as being significantly more to blame for the behavioral health consequence of ACEs. The effect of the state-tailored policy brief on parental blame is an unintended messaging effect that signals cause for caution when disseminating evidence about ACEs to policymakers and other practice audiences. More broadly, the findings highlight a need to consider unintended messaging effects in dissemination research and practice.

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.

News Media Coverage of Childcare: How U.S. Local TV News Framed the Problem Before and During the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Early care and education (ECE), or the care young children receive before entering formal schooling, can take multiple forms and is delivered in different settings, such as a center, church, or public school. Federal and state governments regularly fund ECE programs and policies through the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG). Many families, however, face significant challenges in access, cost, and quality of ECE programs, and ECE professionals report substantial challenges in the workplace (e.g., inadequate training) and beyond (e.g., low wages). Policies addressing issues related to ECE were proposed in 2021, but stalled on the U.S. federal policy agenda. In this study, we examine the ECE content of local television news coverage both for its representations of and for its potential influences on ECE policy agendas. We use data from local stations affiliated with the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX) in media markets across the U.S., airing before and during the pandemic. We analyze elements of coverage that could affect public recognition of ECE-related issues, including how problems were framed (e.g., news coverage highlighting scandals or adverse events at ECE facilities) and solutions identified (e.g., public policy). We find that during 2018 and 2019, more coverage highlighted scandalous activity than public policy. The reverse was true, however, during the early period of the pandemic (from mid-March through June of 2020). Researchers and health professionals were seldom included in stories in either sample, and very few stories offered context about the benefits of ECE for health and well-being. These coverage patterns have implications for the public's understanding of ECE policy and the perceived need for reform. Policymakers, advocates, and researchers looking to advance support for ECE should consider ways to use local television news to present health and policy-relevant information to broad segments of the public.

Strategic Messaging to Promote Policies that Advance Racial Equity: What Do We Know, and What Do We Need to Learn?

Policy Points Many studies have explored the impact of message strategies to build support for policies that advance racial equity, but few studies examine the effects of richer stories of lived experience and detailed accounts of the ways racism is embedded in policy design and implementation. Longer messages framed to emphasize social and structural causes of racial inequity hold significant potential to enhance support for policies to advance racial equity. There is an urgent need to develop, test, and disseminate communication interventions that center perspectives from historically marginalized people and promote policy advocacy, community mobilization, and collective action to advance racial equity. CONTEXT: Long-standing racial inequities in health and well-being are shaped by racialized public policies that perpetuate disadvantage among Black, Brown, Indigenous, and people of color. Strategic messaging can accelerate public and policymaker support for public policies that advance population health. We lack a comprehensive understanding of lessons learned from work on policy messaging to advance racial equity and the gaps in knowledge it reveals. METHODS: A scoping review of peer-reviewed studies from communication, psychology, political science, sociology, public health, and health policy that have tested how various message strategies influence support and mobilization for racial equity policy domains across a wide variety of social systems. We used keyword database searches, author bibliographic searches, and reviews of reference lists from relevant sources to compile 55 peer-reviewed papers with 80 studies that used experiments to test the effects of one or more message strategies in shaping support for racial equity-related policies, as well as the cognitive/emotional factors that predict their support. FINDINGS: Most studies report on the short-term effects of very short message manipulations. Although many of these studies find evidence that reference to race or use of racial cues tend to undermine support for racial equity-related policies, the accumulated body of evidence has generally not explored the effects of richer, more nuanced stories of lived experience and/or detailed historical and contemporary accounts of the ways racism is embedded in public policy design and implementation. A few well-designed studies offer evidence that longer-form messages framed to emphasize social and structural causes of racial inequity can enhance support for policies to advance racial equity, though many questions require further research. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude by laying out a research agenda to fill numerous wide gaps in the evidentiary base related to building support for racial equity policy across sectors.

The Perils of Medicalization for Population Health and Health Equity.

Policy Points Medicalization is a historical process by which personal, behavioral, and social issues are increasingly viewed through a biomedical lens and "diagnosed and treated" as individual pathologies and problems by medical authorities. Medicalization in the United States has led to a conflation of "health" and "health care" and a confusion between individual social needs versus the social, political, and economic determinants of health. The essential and important work of population health science, public health practice, and health policy writ large is being thwarted by a medicalized view of health and an overemphasis on personal health services and the health care delivery system as the major focal point for addressing societal health issues and health inequality. Increased recognition of the negative consequences of a medicalized view of health is essential, with a focus on education and training of clinicians and health care managers, journalists, and policymakers.

Who does COVID-19 hurt most? Perceptions of unequal impact and political implications.

While the overall impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on U.S. population health has been devastating, it has not affected everyone equally. The risks of hospitalization and death from the disease are relatively low for the population as a whole, but much higher for specific subpopulations defined by age, health status, and race or ethnicity. The extent to which Americans perceive these disparities is an open question, with potentially important political implications. Recognition of unequal impacts may prime concerns about justice and fairness, making Americans more concerned and willing to support government intervention. On the other hand, belief that the pandemic primarily threatens "other people" or out-groups may reduce, rather than increase, a person's concern. Partisanship and media consumption habits are also likely to play a role in these perceptions, as they do in most issues related to COVID-19. In this paper, we use original survey data from the Cooperative Election Study (N = 1000) to explore Americans' perceptions of which groups are most harmed by the pandemic, the demographic and political determinants of these perceptions, and the relationship of these perceptions with their opinions about COVID-related mitigation policy. We find that, on average, people perceived accurately that certain groups (e.g., Black Americans, older people) were more affected, but these group perceptions varied by demographic and political characteristics of respondents. We find, in contrast with recent experimental evidence, that the perception that populations of color were harmed was associated with more support for pandemic mitigation strategies. More research should investigate the relationships among pandemic politics and the racial dynamics of the target populations most affected.

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.

Newspaper Coverage of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Toxic Stress in the United States, 2014-2020: Consequences, Causes, and Solutions.

News media can shape public opinion about child adversity and influence the translation of research into public policy. Research about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and toxic stress has increased dramatically in recent years, but little is known about how these concepts are covered in news media. We reviewed how newspapers in the United States have portrayed the consequences of, causes of, and solutions to address ACEs and toxic stress, examined trends in newspaper coverage, and assessed differences in coverage of ACEs versus toxic stress. Quantitative content analysis was conducted of 746 newspaper articles mentioning "adverse childhood experience(s)" and/or "toxic stress" published in 25 U.S. newspapers between January 1, 2014, and May 30, 2020. κ statistics of interrater reliability were calculated, and variables with κ ≥ .60 were retained for quantitative analysis. We found that newspaper coverage of ACEs and toxic stress increased dramatically between 2014 and 2018 and then sharply declined. Only 13.3% of articles mentioned both ACEs and toxic stress. There were many statistically significant (p < .05) differences in the causes, consequences, and solutions identified in articles focused on ACEs versus toxic stress. Coverage of both concepts predominantly focused on consequences for individuals, not society. However, 54.6% of articles identified a structural cause of ACEs and/or toxic stress. Increased volume in newspaper coverage about ACEs and toxic stress could increase public awareness about the relationship between childhood adversity and adult outcomes. There is a need to portray ACEs and toxic stress as complementary concepts more coherently in news media.

Local TV News Coverage of Racial Disparities in COVID-19 During the First Wave of the Pandemic, March-June 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted health and social outcomes for people of color in the United States. This study examined how local TV news stories attributed causes and solutions for COVID-19-related racial health and social disparities, and whether coverage of such disparities changed after George Floyd's murder, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We systematically validated keywords to extract relevant news content and conducted a content analysis of 169 discrete local TV news stories aired between March and June 2020 from 80 broadcast networks within 22 purposefully selected media markets. We found that social determinants of COVID-19 related racial disparities have been part of the discussion in local TV news, but racism as a public health crisis was rarely mentioned. Coverage of racial disparities focused far more attention on physical health outcomes than broader social impacts. Stories cited more structural factors than individual factors, as causes of these disparities. After the murder of George Floyd, stories were more likely to mention Black and Latinx people than other populations impacted by COVID-19. Only 9% of local news stories referenced racism, and stories referenced politicians more frequently than public health experts.

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.

Television airings of U.S. federal COVID-19 public service announcements in 2020 were associated with market-level political orientation, not COVID-19 rates.

Televised public service announcements were one of the ways that the U.S. federal government distributed health information about the COVID-19 pandemic to Americans in 2020. However, little is known about the reach of these campaigns or the populations who might have been exposed to the information these ads conveyed. We conducted a descriptive analysis of federally-affiliated public service announcement airings to assess where they were aired and the market-level social and demographic characteristics associated with the airings. We found no correspondence between airings and COVID-19 incidence rates from March to December 2020, but we found a positive association between airings and the Democratic vote share of the market, adjusting for other market demographic characteristics. Our results suggest that PSAs may have contributed to divergent exposure to health information among the U.S. public during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Serving the public? A content analysis of COVID-19 public service announcements airing from March - December of 2020 in the U.S.

The objective of this research was to examine the health messages conveyed in public service announcements (PSAs) affiliated with the U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. To do so, we conducted a content analysis of 132 federally-affiliated PSAs that were aired 170,820 times between March 12 and December 16, 2020. Using a quantitative coding instrument, we analyzed health behavioral guidance, messages about groups, people depicted, and other PSA features. We calculated frequencies of exposure to messages at the airing-level to account for the varying number of times each PSA was aired. Far more PSAs aired between March and June than between July and December. The most common health guidance was to stay at home (80.7%), practice social distancing (61.9%), and wash hands (54.5%); 36.1% of airings included guidance to wear masks. Few PSAs referenced group differences in risk of infection or transmission, nor did they reference scientific evidence or the future availability of vaccines. PSAs aired in 2020 missed opportunities to convey important information to the public and to center health equity in public communication.

Association of Funding Cuts to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Navigator Program With Privately Sponsored Television Advertising.

Importance: Many individuals eligible for coverage in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace remain unenrolled because of information barriers. Whether the private sector or the public sector should conduct outreach to address these barriers is a topic of active debate. Objective: To determine whether cuts to the funding of the ACA navigator program were associated with changes in the volume of private sector advertising. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using data from the 2015 to 2019 open enrollment periods, this economic evaluation analyzed the changes in advertising associated with 2017 to 2019 cuts to navigator program funding. A difference-in-difference analysis was used to compare outcomes before and after the cuts in counties with higher and lower exposure to the navigator program. Health insurance advertising was measured using data from Kantar/Campaign Media Analysis Group in collaboration with the Wesleyan Media Project, the most comprehensive data available on local broadcast and national cable advertising. The data set included all counties that met the eligibility criteria for the navigator program from 2015 through 2019. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to May 2022. Exposures: Counties were classified as having higher or lower exposure to the navigator program according to the intensity of program activity in 2016, before the funding cuts. Counties served only by statewide navigator programs were categorized as lower exposure, while those also served by local navigator programs were categorized as higher exposure. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of privately sponsored television advertisement airings for the ACA individual health insurance marketplace during the 2015 to 2019 open enrollment periods in each county, adjusted for population. Results: All counties in 33 states that met the eligibility criteria for the navigator program from 2015 through 2019 were included in the analysis (2435 counties). Cuts to the navigator program were not associated with changes in the number of privately sponsored health insurance advertisements aired. Results were similar under several alternative approaches including an event study specification. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of the association between television advertising and navigator funding in the ACA marketplaces, private sector entities did not increase their advertising to compensate for declines in government-sponsored navigator activity. This finding can inform policy debates about the extent to which the private sector adjusts in response to changes in government outreach, and thus improve the design of state waivers and federal funding allocations.

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.