White patients' physical responses to healthcare treatments are influenced by provider race and gender.

The healthcare workforce in the United States is becoming increasingly diverse, gradually shifting society away from the historical overrepresentation of White men among physicians. However, given the long-standing underrepresentation of people of color and women in the medical field, patients may still associate the concept of doctors with White men and may be physiologically less responsive to treatment administered by providers from other backgrounds. To investigate this, we varied the race and gender of the provider from which White patients received identical treatment for allergic reactions and measured patients' improvement in response to this treatment, thus isolating how a provider's demographic characteristics shape physical responses to healthcare. A total of 187 White patients experiencing a laboratory-induced allergic reaction interacted with a healthcare provider who applied a treatment cream and told them it would relieve their allergic reaction. Unbeknownst to the patients, the cream was inert (an unscented lotion) and interactions were completely standardized except for the provider's race and gender. Patients were randomly assigned to interact with a provider who was a man or a woman and Asian, Black, or White. A fully blinded research assistant measured the change in the size of patients' allergic reaction after cream administration. Results indicated that White patients showed a weaker response to the standardized treatment over time when it was administered by women or Black providers. We explore several potential explanations for these varied physiological treatment responses and discuss the implications of problematic race and gender dynamics that can endure "under the skin," even for those who aim to be bias free.

Leveraging Mobile Technology for Public Health Promotion: A Multidisciplinary Perspective.

Health behaviors are inextricably linked to health and well-being, yet issues such as physical inactivity and insufficient sleep remain significant global public health problems. Mobile technology-and the unprecedented scope and quantity of data it generates-has a promising but largely untapped potential to promote health behaviors at the individual and population levels. This perspective article provides multidisciplinary recommendations on the design and use of mobile technology, and the concomitant wealth of data, to promote behaviors that support overall health. Using physical activity as anexemplar health behavior, we review emerging strategies for health behavior change interventions. We describe progress on personalizing interventions to an individual and their social, cultural, and built environments, as well as on evaluating relationships between mobile technology data and health to establish evidence-based guidelines. In reviewing these strategies and highlighting directions for future research, we advance the use of theory-based, personalized, and human-centered approaches in promoting health behaviors.

Changing cancer mindsets: A randomized controlled feasibility and efficacy trial.

OBJECTIVE: A cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatment can disrupt the full spectrum of physical, social, emotional, and functional quality of life. But existing psychological treatments are focused primarily on specific psychological symptoms as opposed to improving the overall patient experience. We studied the feasibility and efficacy of a novel digital intervention targeting patient mindsets-core assumptions about the nature and meaning of illness-designed to improve overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in newly diagnosed cancer patients undergoing treatment with curative intent. METHODS: Recently diagnosed (≤150 days) adult patients with non-metastatic cancers undergoing systemic treatment (N = 361) were recruited from across the United States to participate in this decentralized clinical trial. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the Cancer Mindset Intervention (CMI) or Treatment as Usual (TAU). Participants in the CMI group completed seven online modules over 10 weeks (2.5 h total) targeting mindsets about cancer and the body. The primary outcome was overall HRQoL, and secondary outcomes were coping behaviors and symptom distress. RESULTS: Patients in the CMI group reported significant (p < 0.001) improvements in adaptive mindsets about cancer and the body over time. Compared with the TAU condition, the CMI group reported significant improvements in overall HRQoL (B = 0.60; 95% CI 0.34-0.85; p < 0.001), increased engagement in adaptive coping behaviors (B = 0.03; 95% CI 0.02-0.04; p < 0.001), and reduced distress from physical symptoms (B = -0.29; 95% CI -0.44 to -0.14; p < 0.01). Effect sizes of these changes ranged from d = 0.42-d = 0.54. CONCLUSION: A brief mindset-focused digital intervention was effective at improving physical, social, emotional, and functional HRQoL, increasing adaptive coping behaviors, and reducing physical symptom distress in newly diagnosed cancer patients.

Changing Mindsets About Side Effects of the COVID-19 Vaccination: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Side-effect concerns are a major barrier to vaccination against COVID-19 and other diseases. Identifying cost- and time-efficient interventions to improve vaccine experience and reduce vaccine hesitancy-without withholding information about side effects-is critical. PURPOSE: Determine whether a brief symptom as positive signals mindset intervention can improve vaccine experience and reduce vaccine hesitancy after the COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: English-speaking adults (18+) were recruited during the 15-min wait period after receiving their second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and were randomly allocated to the symptom as positive signals mindset condition or the treatment as usual control. Participants in the mindset intervention viewed a 3:43-min video explaining how the body responds to vaccinations and how common side effects such as fatigue, sore arm, and fever are signs that the vaccination is helping the body boost immunity. The control group received standard vaccination center information. RESULTS: Mindset participants (N = 260) versus controls (N = 268) reported significantly less worry about symptoms at day 3 [t(506)=2.60, p=.01, d=0.23], fewer symptoms immediately following the vaccine [t(484)=2.75, p=.006, d=0.24], and increased intentions to vaccinate against viruses like COVID-19 in the future [t(514)=-2.57, p=.01, d=0.22]. No significant differences for side-effect frequency at day 3, coping, or impact. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of a brief video aimed at reframing symptoms as positive signals to reduce worry and increase future vaccine intentions. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12621000722897p.

Side-effect concerns are a major barrier to vaccination against COVID-19 and other diseases. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether a brief symptom as positive signals mindset intervention could improve vaccine experience and reduce vaccine hesitancy after the COVID-19 vaccination. Participants were recruited during the 15-min wait period after receiving their second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination and were randomly allocated to a treatment as usual control condition or to a mindset intervention condition which entailed watching a 3:43-min video explaining how the body responds to vaccinations and how common side effects such as fatigue, sore arm, and fever are signs that the vaccination is helping the body boost immunity. Compared with participants in the control condition, participants in the mindset intervention condition reported significantly less worry about symptoms at day 3, fewer symptoms immediately following the vaccine and increased intentions to vaccinate against viruses like COVID-19 in the future. No significant differences emerged for side-effect frequency at day 3, coping, or impact. These finding provide initial support for cost- and time-efficient interventions to improve vaccine experience and reduce vaccine hesitancy without withholding information about side effects.

Emphasizing appeal over health promotes preference for nutritious foods in people of low socioeconomic status.

People of low socioeconomic status (SES) have disproportionately poorer dietary health despite efforts to improve access and highlight the health benefits of nutritious foods. While health-focused labels and advertisements make healthier options easier to recognize, they can prime a number of negative associations about healthy foods (e.g., taste, satiety, cost), which may be particularly aversive for low SES groups. This within-subjects study recruited people of low and high SES (those without and with a college degree) and compared their product expectations, experiences, satiety, and choice when consuming a bottled fruit and vegetable smoothie promoted as pleasurable ("Crave") or as healthy ("Nutralean"). Relative to Nutralean, Crave improved product expectations and behavioral measures of satiety across all participants. However, Crave enhanced expectations, experiences, and product choice more for low SES than high SES participants. Importantly, improvements were achieved without deception of nutritional facts and without decreasing perceived healthiness or increasing perceived cost. These findings identify SES as an important moderator in health-focused promotion and suggest how the rapidly growing healthy food industry can more effectively appeal to low SES groups, contexts which the majority of Americans navigate.

Language in popular American culture constructs the meaning of healthy and unhealthy eating: Narratives of craveability, excitement, and social connection in movies, television, social media, recipes, and food reviews.

Many people want to eat healthier but struggle to do so, in part due to a dominant perception that healthy foods are at odds with hedonic goals. Is the perception that healthy foods are less appealing than unhealthy foods represented in language across popular entertainment media and social media? Six studies analyzed dialogue about food in six cultural products - creations of a culture that reflect its perspectives - including movies, television, social media posts, food recipes, and food reviews. In Study 1 (N = 617 movies) and Study 2 (N = 27 television shows), healthy foods were described with fewer appealing descriptions (e.g., "couldn't stop eating"; d = 0.59 and d = 0.37, respectively) and more unappealing descriptions (e.g., "I hate peas"; d = -.57 and d = -.63, respectively) than unhealthy foods in characters' speech from the film and television industries. Using sources with richer descriptive language, Studies 3-6 analyzed popular American restaurants' Facebook posts (Study 3, N = 2275), recipe descriptions from Allrecipes.com (Study 4, N = 1000), Yelp reviews from six U.S. cities (Study 5, N = 4403), and Twitter tweets (Study 6, N = 10,000) for seven specific themes. Meta-analytic results across Studies 3-6 showed that healthy foods were specifically described as less craveworthy (d = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.44-0.59), less exciting (d = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.31-0.49), and less social (d = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.04-0.68) than unhealthy foods. Machine learning methods further generalized patterns across 1.6 million tweets spanning 42 different foods representing a range of nutritional quality. These data suggest that strategies to encourage healthy choices must counteract pervasive narratives that dissociate healthy foods from craveability, excitement, and social connection in individuals' everyday lives.

What Should Clinicians Tell Patients about Placebo and Nocebo Effects? Practical Considerations Based on Expert Consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical and laboratory studies demonstrate that placebo and nocebo effects influence various symptoms and conditions after the administration of both inert and active treatments. OBJECTIVE: There is an increasing need for up-to-date recommendations on how to inform patients about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice and train clinicians how to disclose this information. METHODS: Based on previous clinical recommendations concerning placebo and nocebo effects, a 3-step, invitation-only Delphi study was conducted among an interdisciplinary group of internationally recognized experts. The study consisted of open- and closed-ended survey questions followed by a final expert meeting. The surveys were subdivided into 3 parts: (1) informing patients about placebo effects, (2) informing patients about nocebo effects, and (3) training clinicians how to communicate this information to the patients. RESULTS: There was consensus that communicating general information about placebo and nocebo effects to patients (e.g., explaining their role in treatment) could be beneficial, but that such information needs to be adjusted to match the specific clinical context (e.g., condition and treatment). Experts also agreed that training clinicians to communicate about placebo and nocebo effects should be a regular and integrated part of medical education that makes use of multiple formats, including face-to-face and online modalities. CONCLUSIONS: The current 3-step Delphi study provides consensus-based recommendations and practical considerations for disclosures about placebo and nocebo effects in clinical practice. Future research is needed on how to optimally tailor information to specific clinical conditions and patients' needs, and on developing standardized disclosure training modules for clinicians.

Increasing Vegetable Intake by Emphasizing Tasty and Enjoyable Attributes: A Randomized Controlled Multisite Intervention for Taste-Focused Labeling.

Healthy food labels tout health benefits, yet most people prioritize tastiness in the moment of food choice. In a preregistered intervention, we tested whether taste-focused labels compared with health-focused labels increased vegetable intake at five university dining halls throughout the United States. Across 137,842 diner decisions, 185 days, and 24 vegetable types, taste-focused labels increased vegetable selection by 29% compared with health-focused labels and by 14% compared with basic labels. Vegetable consumption also increased. Supplementary studies further probed the mediators, moderators, and boundaries of these effects. Increased expectations of a positive taste experience mediated the effect of taste-focused labels on vegetable selection. Moderation tests revealed greater effects in settings that served tastier vegetable recipes. Taste-focused labels outperformed labels that merely contained positive words, fancy words, or lists of ingredients. Together, these studies show that emphasizing tasty and enjoyable attributes increases vegetable intake in real-world settings in which vegetables compete with less healthy options.

Americans' Health Mindsets: Content, Cultural Patterning, and Associations With Physical and Mental Health.

BACKGROUND: Health mindsets are mental frameworks that help people recognize, organize, interpret, and respond to health-relevant information. Although mindsets shape health behaviors and outcomes, no study has examined the health mindsets of ethnically and socioeconomically diverse Americans. PURPOSE: We explored the content, cultural patterning, and health correlates of diverse Americans' health mindsets. METHODS: Two studies surveyed approximately equal numbers of African American, Asian American, European American, and Latinx American men and women of lower and higher socioeconomic status (SES). Study 1 (N = 334) used open-ended questions to elicit participants' mindsets about the definitions, causes, and benefits of health. Study 2 (N = 320) used Study 1's results to develop a closed-ended instrument. RESULTS: In Study 1, open-ended questioning revealed six overarching mindset themes: behavioral, medical, physical, psychological, social, and spiritual. The most prevalent mindsets were psychological definitions, behavioral causes, and psychological benefits. Participants mentioned more cause themes than definition or benefit themes, and mindset theme mentions correlated with worse health. Older participants mentioned more themes than younger, women mentioned more definition themes than men, and low-SES participants mentioned more cause themes than high-SES participants. In Study 2, closed-ended scales uncovered more complex and positive health mindsets. Psychological and spiritual benefit mindsets correlated with good mental health. African Americans and women endorsed the widest array of mindsets, and the spiritual benefit mindset partially explained the superior mental health of African Americans. CONCLUSIONS: Many Americans hold simplistic, illness-focused health mindsets. Cultivating more complex, benefit-focused, and culturally appropriate health mindsets could support health.

Smart food policy for healthy food labeling: Leading with taste, not healthiness, to shift consumption and enjoyment of healthy foods.

Smart food policy models for improving dietary intake recommend tailoring interventions to people's food preferences. Yet, despite people citing tastiness as their leading concern when making food choices, healthy food labels overwhelmingly emphasize health attributes (e.g., low caloric content, reductions in fat or sugar) rather than tastiness. Here we compared the effects of this traditional health-focused labeling approach to a taste-focused labeling approach on adults' selection and enjoyment of healthy foods. Four field studies (total N = 4273) across several dining settings in northern California in 2016-2017 tested whether changing healthy food labels to emphasize taste and satisfaction rather than nutritional properties would encourage more people to choose them (Studies 1-2), sustain healthy purchases over the long-term (Study 3), and improve both the perceived taste of and mindsets about healthy foods (Study 4). Compared to health-focused labeling, taste-focused labeling increased choice of vegetables (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.32, 2.26), salads (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.06, 4.06), and vegetable wraps (OR = 3.09, 95% CI: 1.73, 5.65) in Studies 1-2. In Study 3, taste-focused labeling sustained vegetarian entrée purchases over a two-month period, while health-focused labeling led to a 45.1% decrease. In Study 4, taste-focused labeling significantly enhanced post-consumption ratings of vegetable deliciousness and improved mindsets about the deliciousness of healthy foods compared to health-focused labeling. These studies demonstrate that taste-focused labeling is a low-cost strategy that increased healthy food selection by 38% and outperforms health-focused labeling on multiple smart food policy mechanisms.

Implications of Placebo and Nocebo Effects for Clinical Practice: Expert Consensus.

BACKGROUND: Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient. Placebo and nocebo studies have evolved from predominantly methodological research into a far-reaching interdisciplinary field that is unravelling the neurobiological, behavioural and clinical underpinnings of these phenomena in a broad variety of medical conditions. As a consequence, there is an increasing demand from health professionals to develop expert recommendations about evidence-based and ethical use of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice. METHODS: A survey and interdisciplinary expert meeting by invitation was organized as part of the 1st Society for Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (SIPS) conference in 2017. Twenty-nine internationally recognized placebo researchers participated. RESULTS: There was consensus that maximizing placebo effects and minimizing nocebo effects should lead to better treatment outcomes with fewer side effects. Experts particularly agreed on the importance of informing patients about placebo and nocebo effects and training health professionals in patient-clinician communication to maximize placebo and minimize nocebo effects. CONCLUSIONS: The current paper forms a first step towards developing evidence-based and ethical recommendations about the implications of placebo and nocebo research for medical practice, based on the current state of evidence and the consensus of experts. Future research might focus on how to implement these recommendations, including how to optimize conditions for educating patients about placebo and nocebo effects and providing training for the implementation in clinical practice.

Beliefs About Stress Attenuate the Relation Among Adverse Life Events, Perceived Distress, and Self-Control.

Prior research has shown that adverse events in the lives of adolescents precipitate psychological distress, which in turn impairs self-control. This study (N = 1,343) examined the protective effects of stress mindsets-beliefs about the extent to which stress might be beneficial or strictly detrimental. The results confirmed that increasing the number of adverse life events across the school year predicted rank order increases in perceived distress, which in turn predicted rank order decreases in self-control. Adolescents who believed in the potential benefits of stress were less prone to feeling stressed in the wake of adverse life events. These findings suggest that changing the way adolescents think about stress may help protect them from acting impulsively when confronted with adversity.

Medicine plus mindset: A mixed-methods evaluation of a novel mindset-focused training for primary care teams.

OBJECTIVES: Patient mindsets influence health outcomes; yet trainings focused on care teams' understanding, recognizing, and shaping patient mindsets do not exist. This paper aims to describe and evaluate initial reception of the "Medicine Plus Mindset" training program. METHODS: Clinicians and staff at five primary care clinics (N = 186) in the San Francisco Bay Area received the Medicine Plus Mindset Training. The Medicine Plus Mindset training consists of a two-hour training program plus a one-hour follow-up session including: (a) evidence to help care teams understand patients' mindsets' influence on treatment; (b) a framework to support care teams in identifying specific patient mindsets; and (c) strategies to shape patient mindsets. RESULTS: We used a common model (Kirkpatrick) to evaluate the training based on participants' reaction, learnings, and behavior. Reaction: Participants rated the training as highly useful and enjoyable. Learnings: The training increased the perceived importance of mindsets in healthcare and improved self-reported efficacy of using mindsets in practice. Behavior: The training increased reported frequency of shaping patient mindsets. CONCLUSIONS: Development of this training and the study's results introduce a promising and feasible approach for integrating mindset into clinical practice. Practice Implications Mindset training can add a valuable dimension to clinical care and should be integrated into training and clinical practice.

Body Mindsets are Associated With Pain and Threat-Related Risk Factors for Pain in Survivors of Childhood Cancer.

Pain is a common consequence of childhood cancer. While most research has examined biomedical predictors of post-cancer pain, biopsychosocial conceptualisations such as the cancer threat interpretation (CTI) model hold promise for guiding comprehensive pain management strategies. Guided by the CTI model, this cross-sectional study evaluated correlates of post-cancer pain in childhood cancer survivors including threat-related risk factors (bodily threat monitoring, fear of cancer recurrence, help-seeking) and mindsets about the body. In the preceding three months, 21.8% of the survivors reported chronic pain (>3 months), and 14.3% experienced pain most days. Greater bodily threat monitoring, more fear of cancer recurrence, and more help-seeking were associated with more pain. There was heterogeneity in the mindsets that survivors of childhood cancer hold about their bodies. Holding the mindset that the 'body is an adversary' was associated with more pain, greater bodily threat monitoring, and more fear of cancer recurrence. Holding the mindset that the 'body is responsive' was associated with less bodily threat monitoring, while the mindset that the 'body is capable' was associated with greater help-seeking. A path model demonstrated a significant combined indirect effect of the 'body is an adversary' mindset on pain through bodily threat monitoring and fear of cancer recurrence. Overall, this study supported that a sub-group of childhood cancer survivors experience persistent and interfering pain and provided cross-sectional support for threat-related correlates for pain aligning with the CTI model. Body mindsets were associated with pain and threat-related correlates and may represent a novel target to support survivors with pain. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents associations of body mindsets, threat-related risk factors, and pain in survivors of childhood cancer (aged 11-25), guided by the Cancer Threat Interpretation model. The study indicates that body mindsets may be novel targets to embed in comprehensive post-cancer pain management approaches to support young survivors with pain.

Negative consequences of self-presentation on disclosure of health information: A catch-22 for Black patients?

RATIONALE: Most patients assume that it is adaptive to present oneself in a positive light when interacting with medical professionals. Here in two studies focused on Black patients we ask: might this desire to present oneself well inhibit the disclosure of health-relevant information when patients are concerned about negative and stereotypic evaluations by their health care providers? OBJECTIVE: Specifically, we explore three important questions: First, whether self-presentational efforts (e.g., working hard to sound knowledgeable or "smart") are negatively associated with disclosure of health information (e.g., not taking certain medications); Second, whether patient-provider racial congruence (e.g. Black patients interacting with a Black vs. a White doctor) moderates that relationship; and third, more broadly, what factors promote or inhibit disclosure of health information for Black patients in medical interactions. METHODS: These questions were investigated using mixed methodology (survey, experimental, qualitative) studies on CloudResearch and Prolific. RESULTS: We found a potential catch-22: participants who spend more effort self-presenting tend to be less comfortable disclosing health information to their healthcare providers. Moreover, Study 1 (N = 321) indicated that the negative relationship between self-presentation and disclosure was significant in Black-incongruent (i.e., Black patient and White provider) and White-congruent (i.e., White patient and White provider) medical interactions. Study 2 (N = 361) did not find a significant moderation by race of the provider but instead suggested that the relationship between self-presentation and disclosure was moderated by expectations of unfair treatment. Exploratory qualitative analyses suggested that some Black participants face a dilemma when deciding whether to disclose information to their healthcare providers. They weigh the kind of information they will share, and how sharing some information might lead to embarrassment and judgment. CONCLUSION: Mitigating the potentially counteractive effects of self-presentation on disclosure and working to foster contexts that encourage honest disclosure of health information may help to reduce health care inequalities.

Evaluation of the "rethink stress" mindset intervention: A metacognitive approach to changing mindsets.

Experimental research has demonstrated that a stress-is-enhancing mindset can be induced and can improve outcomes by presenting information on the enhancing nature of stress. However, experimental evidence, media portrayals, and personal experience about the debilitating nature of stress may challenge this mindset. Thus, the traditional approach of focusing on the more "desired" mindset without arming participants against encounters with the less desired mindsets may not be sustainable in the face of conflicting information. How might this limitation be resolved? Here, we present three randomized-controlled interventions that test the efficacy of a "metacognitive approach." In this approach, participants are given more balanced information about the nature of stress along with metacognitive information on the power of their mindsets aimed at empowering them to choose a more adaptive mindset even in the face of conflicting information. In Experiment 1, employees of a large finance company randomized to the metacognitive mindset intervention reported greater increases in stress-is-enhancing mindsets and greater improvements in self-reported measures of physical health symptoms and interpersonal-skill work performance 4 weeks later compared to a waitlist control. Experiment 2, adapted to be distributed electronically via multimedia modules, replicates the effects on stress mindset and symptoms. Experiment 3 compares the metacognitive stress mindset intervention with a more traditional stress mindset manipulation. The metacognitive approach led to greater initial increases in a stress-is-enhancing mindset relative to the traditional intervention, and these increases were sustained after exposure to contradictory information. Taken together, these results provide support for a metacognitive approach to mindset change. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).