Search

Background: To the authors' knowledge, studies regarding risk perception among survivors of thyroid cancer are scarce.Methods: The authors surveyed patients who were diagnosed with differentiated thyroid cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County (2632 patients; 63% response rate). The analytic cohort was defined by a ≤5% risk of disease recurrence and mortality (1597 patients). Patients estimated their recurrence and mortality risks separately (increments of 10% and endpoints of ≤5% and ≥95%). Both outcomes were dichotomized between reasonably accurate estimates (risk perception of ≤5% or 10%) versus overestimation (risk perception of ≥20%). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with risk overestimation, and the relationships between overestimation and both worry and quality of life were evaluated.Results: In the current study sample, 24.7% of patients overestimated their recurrence risk and 12.5% overestimated their mortality risk. A lower educational level was associated with overestimating disease recurrence (≤high school diploma: odds ratio [OR], 1.64 [95% CI, 1.16-2.31]; and some college: OR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.02-1.81]) and mortality (≤high school diploma: OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.93]) risk compared with those attaining at least a college degree. Hispanic ethnicity was found to be associated with overestimating recurrence risk (OR, 1.44, 95% CI 1.02-2.03) compared with their white counterparts. Worry about recurrence and death was found to be greater among patients who overestimated versus those who had a reasonably accurate estimate of their risk of disease recurrence and mortality, respectively (P < .001). Patients who overestimated mortality risk also reported a decreased physical quality of life (mean T score, 43.1; 95% CI, 41.6-44.7) compared with the general population.Conclusions: Less educated patients and Hispanic patients were more likely to report inaccurate risk perceptions, which were associated with worry and a decreased quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: aging; consumer health; health services research; patient engagement; survey research For example, 7 in 10 US primary care physicians feel that patient requests for tests and treatments are a major barrier to reducing overuse.[3] However, little is known about patient perceptions of overuse, or how these perceptions may differ across patients. Survey respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed that "when it comes to medical treatment, more is usually better" (5-point scale),[4] "health care providers in general often recommend medications, tests, or procedures that patients do not really need" (4-point scale), and "my own health care provider often recommends medications, tests or procedures that I do not really need" (4-point scale). Contrary to the majority view among clinicians that patients' requests drive overuse, we found that few older US adults agree that more treatment is usually better and over half agree that clinicians often order unneeded services. [Extracted from the article]

Background: How can we use stories from other people to promote better health experiences, improve judgments about health, and increase the quality of medical decisions without introducing bias, systematically persuading the listeners to change their attitudes, or altering behaviors in nonoptimal ways? More practically, should narratives be used in health education, promotion, or behavior change interventions?Method: In this article, we address these questions by conducting a narrative review of a diverse body of literature on narratives from several disciplines to gain a better understanding about what narratives do, including their role in communication, engagement, recall, persuasion, and health behavior change. We also review broad theories about information processing and persuasion from psychology and more specific models about narrative messaging found in the health communication and marketing literatures to provide insight into the processes by which narratives have their effect on health behavior.Results: To address major gaps in our theoretical understanding about how narratives work and what effects they will have on health behavior, we propose the Narrative Immersion Model, whose goal is to identify the parameters that predict the specific impact of a particular narrative (e.g. persuade, inform, comfort, etc.) based on the type of narrative message (e.g. process, experience, or outcome narrative). Further, the Narrative Immersion Model describes the magnitude of the effect as increasing through successive layers of engagement with the narrative: interest, identification, and immersion. Finally, the Narrative Immersion Model identifies characteristics of the narrative intervention that encourage greater immersion within a given narrative.Conclusions: We believe there are important communication gaps in areas areas of behavioral medicine that could be addressed with narratives; however, more work is needed in order to employ narrative messaging systematically. The Narrative Immersion Model advances our theoretical understanding about narrative processing and its subsequent effects on knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few national studies have asked parents how to improve the childhood vaccination process. We surveyed a nationally representative online panel of parents on how to improve this process, rationales for nonstandard approaches, and alternatives to the standard schedule. Twelve percent of the 1222 respondents reported using nonstandard approaches: 3.2% used a specific schedule, 6.0% had no specific schedule, and 2.5% declined all vaccinations. The most common rationales were that too many vaccines are given at once, and discomfort with vaccine ingredients. Regarding how to improve the process, parents using the standard schedule most often said nothing could be improved (51%), or better vaccine information (22%). Those using nonstandard approaches most often would have liked more choice (40%) or better vaccine information (26%). Parents’ experiences with the vaccination process could be improved by offering information prior to visits, giving more information about side effects, and allowing more flexibility about vaccine scheduling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While some research has examined general attitudes about efforts to reduce overutilization of services, such as the Choosing Wisely® (CW) initiative, little data exists regarding primary care providers' attitudes regarding individual recommendations.Objective: We sought to identify whether particular CW recommendations were perceived by primary care providers as difficult to follow, difficult for patients to accept, or both.Design: Two national surveys, one by mail to a random sample of 2000 U.S. primary care physicians in November 2013, and the second electronically to a random sample of 2500 VA primary care providers (PCPs) in October-December 2014.Participants: A total of 603 U.S. primary care physicians and 1173 VA primary care providers. Response rates were 34 and 48 %, respectively.Main Measures: PCP ratings of whether 12 CW recommendations for screening, testing and treatments applicable to adult primary care were difficult to follow and difficult for patients to accept; and ratings of potential barriers to reducing overutilization.Key Results: For four recommendations regarding not screening or testing in asymptomatic patients, less than 20 % of PCPs found the CW recommendations difficult to accept (range 7.2-16.6 %) or difficult for patients to follow (12.2-19.3 %). For five recommendations regarding testing or treatment for symptomatic conditions, however, there was both variation in reported difficulty to follow (9.8-32 %) and a high level of reported difficulty for patients to accept (35.7-87.1 %). The most frequently reported barriers to reducing overuse included malpractice concern, patient requests for services, lack of time for shared decision making, and the number of tests recommended by specialists.Conclusions: While PCPs found many CW recommendations easy to follow, they felt that some, especially those for symptomatic conditions, would be difficult for patients to accept. Overcoming PCPs' perceptions of patient acceptability will require approaches beyond routine physician education, feedback and financial incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer prevention and screening guidelines are ideally suited to the task of providing high-quality benefit-harm information that informs clinical practice. We systematically examined how US guidelines present benefits and harms for recommended cancer prevention and screening interventions.Methods: We included cancer screening and prevention recommendations from: 1) the United States Preventive Services Task Force, 2) the American Cancer Society, 3) the American College of Physicians, 4) the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and 5) other US guidelines within the National Guidelines Clearinghouse. Searches took place November 20, 2013, and January 1, 2014, and updates were reviewed through July 1, 2015. Two coders used an abstraction form to code information about benefits and harms presented anywhere within a guideline document, including appendices. The primary outcome was each recommendation's benefit-harm "comparability" rating, based on how benefits and harms were presented. Recommendations presenting absolute effects for both benefits and harms received a "comparable" rating. Other recommendations received an incomplete rating or an asymmetric rating based on prespecified criteria.Results: Fifty-five recommendations for using interventions to prevent or detect breast, prostate, colon, cervical, and lung cancer were identified among 32 guidelines. Thirty point nine percent (n = 17) received a comparable rating, 14.5% (n = 8) received an incomplete rating, and 54.5% (n = 30) received an asymmetric rating.Conclusions: Sixty-nine percent of cancer prevention and screening recommendation statements either did not quantify benefits and harms or presented them in an asymmetric manner. Improved presentation of benefits and harms in guidelines would better ensure that clinicians and patients have access to the information required for making informed decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. A growing number of parents adopt alternative vaccination schedules for their children. A better understanding of parents’ rationales for these choices is needed to guide vaccine decision making. Methods. We conducted 24 semistructured telephone interviews with parents of 12- to 36-month-olds and analyzed data using an inductive approach. Results. We identified 5 alternative vaccination approaches: “Dr Sears” schedule, shot-limiting approach, selective delay or decline, visit-by-visit decisions, and refusal of all vaccines. Parents who adopted alternative approaches expressed a desire for more control of exposure to vaccine ingredients; vaccine safety, immune system burden, and perceived disease risk were articulated as concerns. Conclusions. Parents who adopt alternative vaccination schedules can be classified in defined subgroups based on their decision-making approaches, and many describe considered reasons to support their actions. Communications that acknowledge and address those reasons may be better able to engage parents and ultimately enhance the process of decision making about vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Bisphenol A is a chemical used to make certain types of plastics and is found in numerous consumer products. Because scientific studies have raised concerns about Bisphenol A’s potential impact on human health, it has been removed from some (but not all) products. What many consumers do not know, however, is that Bisphenol A is often replaced with other, less-studied chemicals whose health implications are virtually unknown. This type of situation is known as a potential ‘regrettable substitution’, because the substitute material might actually be worse than the material that it replaces. Regrettable substitutions are a common concern among policymakers, and they are a real-world manifestation of the tension that can exist between the desire to avoid risk (known possible consequences that might or might not occur) and ambiguity (second-order uncertainty), which is itself aversive. In this article, we examine how people make such trade-offs using the example of Bisphenol A. Using data from Study 1, we show that people have inconsistent preferences towards these alternatives and that choice is largely determined by irrelevant contextual factors such as the order in which the alternatives are evaluated. Using data from Study 2, we further demonstrate that when people are informed of the presence of substitute chemicals, labelling the alternative product as ‘free’ of Bisphenol A causes them to be significantly more likely to choose the alternative despite its ambiguity. We discuss the relevance of these findings for extant psychological theories as well as their implications for risk, policy and health communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Many decisions can be understood in terms of actors' valuations of benefits and costs. The article investigates whether this is also true of patient medical decision making. It aims to investigate (i) the importance patients attach to various reasons for and against nine medical decisions; (ii) how well the importance attached to benefits and costs predicts action or inaction; and (iii) how such valuations are related to decision confidence. Methods In a national random digit dial telephone survey of U.S. adults, patients rated the importance of various reasons for and against medical decisions they had made or talked to a health-care provider about during the past 2 years. Participants were 2575 English-speaking adults age 40 and older. Data were analysed by means of logistic regressions predicting action/inaction and linear regressions predicting confidence. Results Aggregating individual reasons into those that may be regarded as benefits and those that may be regarded as costs, and weighting them by their importance to the patient, shows the expected relationship to action. Perceived benefits and costs are also significantly related to the confidence patients report about their decision. Conclusion The factors patients say are important in their medical decisions reflect a subjective weighing of benefits and costs and predict action/inaction although they do not necessarily indicate that patients are well informed. The greater the difference between the importance attached to benefits and costs, the greater patients' confidence in their decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The factors that drive overtreatment of gastroesopha- geal reflux disease (GERD) are not well understood, but it has been proposed that the use of the "GERD" disease label could perpetuate use of medication in otherwise healthy infants. METHODS: To determine if use of the disease label GERD influences parents' perceived need to medicate an infant, we surveyed parents in a general pediatric clinic. Parents were given a hypothetical clinical scenario describing an infant who cries and spits up excessively but is otherwise healthy. Using a 2 X 2 factorial design, parents were randomized to receive a scenario in which the doctor either gave a diagnosis of GERD or did not provide a disease label; additionally, half of parents were told that existing medications are probably ineffective, whereas the rest were not given any effectiveness information. We measured parent interest in medication, perception of illness severity, and appreciation of medication offer. RESULTS: Parents who received a GERD diagnosis were interested in medicating their infant, even when they were told that the medications are likely ineffective. However, parents not given a disease label were interested in medication only when medication effectiveness was not discussed (and hence likely assumed). CONCLUSIONS: Labeling an otherwise healthy infant as having a "disease" increased parents' interest in medicating their infant when they were told that medications are ineffective. These findings suggest that use of disease labels may promote overtreatment by causing people to believe that ineffective medications are both useful and necessary. Pediatrics 2013;!31:839-845 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. We sought to evaluate longitudinal trends in people's risk perceptions and vaccination intentions during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Methods. We used data from 10 waves of a US national survey focusing on the H1N1 pandemic (administered between May 2009 and January 2010) to conduct a longitudinal analysis of adult respondents' risk perceptions and vaccination intentions. Results. Self-reported perceived risk of becoming infected with H1N1 paralleled H1N1 activity throughout the pandemic's first year. However, intention to be vaccinated declined from 50% (May 2009) to 16% (January 2010) among those who remained unvaccinated (27% had been vaccinated by January 2010). Respondents who indicated that they had previously been vaccinated against seasonal influenza reported significantly higher H1N1 vaccination intentions than those who had not been vaccinated (67% vs 26%; P < .001). Conclusions. Reported intention to be vaccinated declined well before vaccine became available and decreased throughout the pandemic year. To the extent that prior vaccination for seasonal influenza vaccination is a strong correlate of H1N1 risk perceptions, encouraging seasonal influenza vaccination may benefit pandemic preparedness efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Retaining leftover prescription opioids poses the risks of diversion, misuse, overdose, and death for youth and other family members. This study examined whether a new educational program would enhance risk perceptions and disposal intentions among parents and decrease their retention of leftover prescription opioids.Study Design: This study is an RCT (NCT03287622).Setting/participants: A total of 648 parents whose children were prescribed opioid analgesics were recruited from a Midwestern, academic pediatric hospital between 2017 and 2019. Parents were randomized to receive routine information (control) with or without Scenario-Tailored Opioid Messaging Program intervention.Intervention: The intervention provided opioid risk and mitigation advice using interactive decisional feedback.Main Outcome Measures: The main outcome measures were parents' perceptions of the riskiness of keeping/sharing opioids and child misuse measured at baseline, Days 3 and 14, their intention to dispose of leftover opioids, and their final retention decisions after the child's use (at or around Day 14).Results: Perceived riskiness of child misuse and keeping/sharing opioids increased from baseline through Day 14 only for parents in the intervention group (p≤0.006). However, there were no significant differences in risk perceptions between groups and no intervention effect on disposal intentions at either follow-up. Despite these findings, the intervention reduced the likelihood of parents' opioid retention when adjusted for important parent and child covariates (AOR=0.48; 95% CI=0.25, 0.93; p=0.028). Parents who reported past opioid misuse also showed higher retention behavior (AOR=4.78; 95% CI=2.05, 11.10; p<0.001).Conclusions: A scenario-specific educational intervention emphasizing the potential risks that leftover opioids pose to children and that provided risk mitigation advice decreased parents' retention of their child's leftover opioid medication. Removing leftover prescription drugs from homes with children may be an important step to reducing diversion, accidental poisoning, and misuse among youth.Trial Registration: This study is registered at www.Clinicaltrials: gov NCT03287622. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The reasons for exercising that are featured in health communications brand exercise and socialize individuals about why they should be physically active. Discovering which reasons for exercising are associated with high-quality motivation and behavioral regulation is essential to promoting physical activity and weight control that can be sustained over time. This study investigates whether framing physical activity in advertisements featuring distinct types of goals differentially influences body image and behavioral regulations based on self-determination theory among overweight and obese individuals. Using a three-arm randomized trial, overweight and obese women and men (aged 40-60 yr, n = 1690) read one of three ads framing physical activity as a way to achieve (1) better health, (2) weight loss, or (3) daily well-being. Framing effects were estimated in an ANOVA model with pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction. This study showed that there are immediate framing effects on physical activity behavioral regulations and body image from reading a one-page advertisement about physical activity and that gender and BMI moderate these effects. Framing physical activity as a way to enhance daily well-being positively influenced participants' perceptions about the experience of being physically active and enhanced body image among overweight women, but not men. The experiment had less impact among the obese study participants compared to those who were overweight. These findings support a growing body of research suggesting that, compared to weight loss, framing physical activity for daily well-being is a better gain-frame message for overweight women in midlife. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Rapidly urbanizing communities in middle-income countries could be sources of vaccine hesitancy, and may create hot spots of low vaccination coverage. This study characterizes vaccine hesitancy in Shanghai and identifies disparities in vaccine safety and efficacy concerns by residency status-a marker for recent migration into the city.Methods: Parents of children aged ≤18 years from immunization clinics in Shanghai were enrolled in summer 2019, with the data analyzed during winter 2019-2020. The paper questionnaire used the Parental Attitudes towards Childhood Vaccines scale, which included questions about vaccine safety and efficacy concerns. The primary independent variable was residency-whether an individual was a Shanghai local or a recent migrant (i.e., non-local). Linear regression models assessed the relationship between residency and vaccine safety and efficacy concerns.Results: Among 1,021 participants, 65.4% had local residency, and the remainder were urban non-locals (13.1%) or rural non-locals (21.5%). A majority of parents expressed concerns about vaccine side effects (73.8%), vaccine safety (63.9%), and vaccine effectiveness (52.4%). Compared with locals, rural non-locals were more concerned about vaccine side effects (β=0.26, 95% CI=0.07, 0.46), vaccine safety (β=0.42, 95% CI=0.19, 0.65), and vaccine effectiveness (β=0.37, 95% CI=0.16, 0.58).Conclusions: Differences in vaccine hesitancy by residency could lead to geographical and sociodemographic disparities in vaccination coverage and outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease.Supplement Information: This article is part of a supplement entitled Global Vaccination Equity, which is sponsored by the Global Institute for Vaccine Equity at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As people increasingly turn to social media to access and create health evidence, the greater availability of data and information ought to help more people make evidence-informed health decisions that align with what matters to them. However, questions remain as to whether people can be swayed in favor of or against options by polarized social media, particularly in the case of controversial topics. We created a composite mock news article about home birth from six real news articles and randomly assigned participants in an online study to view comments posted about the original six articles. We found that exposure to one-sided social media comments with one-sided opinions influenced participants' opinions of the health topic regardless of their reported level of previous knowledge, especially when comments contained personal stories. Comments representing a breadth of views did not influence opinions, which suggests that while exposure to one-sided comments may bias opinions, exposure to balanced comments may avoid such bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]