Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic was a devastating public health event that spurred an influx of misinformation. The increase in questionable health content was aided by the speed and scale of digital and social media and certain news agencies' and politicians' active dissemination of misinformation about the virus. The popularity of certain COVID-19 myths created confusion about effective health protocols and impacted trust in the health care and government sectors deployed to manage the pandemic., Objective: This study explored how people's information habits, their level of institutional trust, the news media outlets they consume and the technologies in which they access it, and their media literacy skills influenced their COVID-19 knowledge., Methods: We administered a web-based survey using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to assess US adults' (n=1498) COVID-19 knowledge, media and news habits, media literacy skills, and trust in government and health-related institutions. The data were analyzed using a hierarchical linear regression to examine the association between trust, media literacy, news use, and COVID-19 knowledge., Results: The regression model of demographic variables, political affiliation, trust in institutions, media literacy, and the preference for watching Fox or CNN was statistically significant (R 2 =0.464; F 24,1434 =51.653; P<.001; adjusted R 2 =0.455) in predicting COVID-19 knowledge scores. People who identified as politically conservative, watched Fox News, and reported lower levels of institutional trust and media literacy, scored lower on COVID-19 knowledge questions than those who identified as politically liberal, did not watch Fox News and reported higher levels of institutional trust and media literacy., Conclusions: This study suggests that the media outlets people turn to, their trust in institutions, and their perceived degree of agency to discern credible information can impact people's knowledge of COVID-19, which has potential implications for managing communication in other public health events., (©Kristy Roschke, Alexis M Koskan, Shalini Sivanandam, Jonathan Irby. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 24.07.2024.)

Objective: We assessed the psychosocial influences on college males' human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine patient-provider communication and their uptake of one or more HPV vaccine doses., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey with college males attending one large southwestern university. We used logistic regressions to explore the relationships between psychosocial and demographic variables on patient-provider communication and HPV vaccine uptake., Results: Patient-provider communication had the most significant influence on HPV vaccine uptake. However, most college males reported never discussing the HPV vaccine with their healthcare providers. HPV vaccine awareness, perceived subjective norms to vaccinate, and behavioral control to talk to healthcare providers about the vaccine significantly influenced college males' patient-provider communication and vaccine uptake., Conclusion: HPV vaccine awareness, perceived behavioral control to communicate about the vaccine, and subjective norms to vaccinate are all addressable factors that influence HPV vaccine communication and uptake. Future intervention work should specifically target these factors for college men.

Background: The rampant spread of misinformation about COVID-19 has been linked to a lower uptake of preventive behaviors such as vaccination. Some individuals, however, have been able to resist believing in COVID-19 misinformation. Further, some have acted as information advocates, spreading accurate information and combating misinformation about the pandemic., Objective: This work explores highly knowledgeable information advocates' perspectives, behaviors, and information-related practices., Methods: To identify participants for this study, we used outcomes of survey research of a national sample of 1498 adults to find individuals who scored a perfect or near-perfect score on COVID-19 knowledge questions and who also self-reported actively sharing or responding to news information within the past week. Among this subsample, we selected a diverse sample of 25 individuals to participate in a 1-time, phone-based, semistructured interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the team conducted an inductive thematic analysis., Results: Participants reported trusting in science, data-driven sources, public health, medical experts, and organizations. They had mixed levels of trust in various social media sites to find reliable health information, noting distrust in particular sites such as Facebook (Meta Platforms) and more trust in specific accounts on Twitter (X Corp) and Reddit (Advance Publications). They reported relying on multiple sources of information to find facts instead of depending on their intuition and emotions to inform their perspectives about COVID-19. Participants determined the credibility of information by cross-referencing it, identifying information sources and their potential biases, clarifying information they were unclear about with health care providers, and using fact-checking sites to verify information. Most participants reported ignoring misinformation. Others, however, responded to misinformation by flagging, reporting, and responding to it on social media sites. Some described feeling more comfortable responding to misinformation in person than online. Participants' responses to misinformation posted on the internet depended on various factors, including their relationship to the individual posting the misinformation, their level of outrage in response to it, and how dangerous they perceived it could be if others acted on such information., Conclusions: This research illustrates how well-informed US adults assess the credibility of COVID-19 information, how they share it, and how they respond to misinformation. It illustrates web-based and offline information practices and describes how the role of interpersonal relationships contributes to their preferences for acting on such information. Implications of our findings could help inform future training in health information literacy, interpersonal information advocacy, and organizational information advocacy. It is critical to continue working to share reliable health information and debunk misinformation, particularly since this information informs health behaviors., (©Alexis M Koskan, Shalini Sivanandam, Kristy Roschke, Jonathan Irby, Deborah L Helitzer, Bradley Doebbeling. Originally published in JMIR Infodemiology (https://infodemiology.jmir.org), 20.10.2023.)

Introduction: COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduce the risk of complications and hospitalizations due to this virus. When COVID-19 vaccines first became commercially available, roughly 30% of U.S. adults reported being hesitant to receive these newly developed vaccines, and 15% said they would not receive the vaccine. However, by May 2021, 19% of adults were vaccine-hesitant, and 13% refused to vaccinate against COVID-19. It is critical to understand why adults' degree of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 changed over time to plan for future pandemics and vaccination campaigns., Methods: We conducted two waves of survey research over five months (January and May 2021) with a panel of 890 U.S. adults. One survey question assessed willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. The response option included a slider scale ranging from 0 (signifying complete unwillingness) to 10 (complete willingness). We asked participants whose willingness score changed by more than one point to report their rationale for their change in perceptions. We conducted a conventional content analysis on all qualitative responses., Results: We analyzed qualitative responses for 289 participants, 54.7% of whom had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 by May 2021. Among those who remained unvaccinated, 36.1% reported increased willingness to vaccinate. The most commonly cited reasons for becoming more willing to receive the vaccine include believing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, protecting against the pandemic, and desiring to return to pre-pandemic life. Reasons for increased COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy include vaccine safety concerns, the low perceived need for the vaccine, distrust in how COVID-19 vaccines are made and of larger institutions such as the government and pharmaceutical companies, and concerns about vaccine effectiveness., Conclusion: Findings illuminate the rationale behind individuals' changes in their degree of willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19. It is critical to incorporate these considerations in future vaccine rollout initiatives to increase the public's vaccine confidence., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestAuthors have no conflicts of interest to report., (© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.)

In early 2022 in the U.S., rural adults were the least likely to vaccinate against COVID-19 due to vaccine hesitancy and reduced healthcare access. This study explored the factors influencing rural adults' COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and their acceptance of pharmacist-administered vaccination. We utilized phone-based semi-structured interviews with 30 adults living in rural regions of one southwestern state and analyzed the data using a team-based thematic analysis approach. Vaccine-willing participants described knowing other people affected by the virus and their desired protection from the virus. They reported trusting scientific institutions and the government to provide safe vaccines. Vaccine-hesitant populations, however, feared that the COVID-19 vaccine development process had been rushed, compromising the safety of these newer vaccines. Although they differed in the news sources they preferred for receiving COVID-19 vaccine information, both vaccine-willing and vaccine-hesitant participants described trusting local authorities, such as healthcare providers and county government officials, to provide accurate COVID-19 vaccine information. Regarding the acceptability of pharmacist-administered COVID-19 vaccinations, all but one participant described their acceptance of this healthcare delivery approach. Future outreach should leverage rural adults' trust in local sources, including community pharmacists, deemed more convenient access points to healthcare, when addressing vaccine hesitancy.

Vaccines are highly effective for curbing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Yet, millions of Americans remain hesitant about getting vaccinated, jeopardizing our ability to end the COVID-19 pandemic by fueling the spread and development of new variants. We show that brief video-based messages of encouragement addressing specific COVID-19 vaccine concerns increase vaccination intentions, and that vaccination intentions, in turn, are predictive of future vaccine uptake. Results from our online experiment reveal that willingness to get vaccinated is driven by messages that increase confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and perceived behavioral control to get vaccinated. Importantly, messages were particularly effective among more skeptical populations including people who identify as politically conservative or moderate and those who express low trust in government institutions. Our findings corroborate the real-world behavioral significance of vaccination intentions, and devise how even short, scalable online messages can provide governments and health authorities an inexpensive, yet effective tool for increasing intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19 among populations most reluctant to get them., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake varies by geographic regions with rural, often medically underserved areas, lagging behind more urban regions in terms of vaccine initiation and completion. In these regions, pharmacies may serve as an additional location for HPV vaccine administration. Little is known about rural caregivers' willingness to have their HPV vaccine age-eligible children obtain this vaccine from their local pharmacist. First and second authors conducted 26 in-depth interviews with caregivers of HPV vaccine age-eligible children living in rural regions of a southwestern state to explore their perceptions of the HPV vaccine and their willingness for pharmacist-administered HPV vaccination. They analyzed interview data using an inductive qualitative content analyses approach. The majority of caregivers were unaware that pharmacists could offer adolescent vaccines. However, most were willing to allow their children to receive the vaccine from this non-traditional source. Comments related to obtaining vaccinations from pharmacists related mostly to concerns about proper training and their certification to vaccinate against HPV. Caregivers believed that having a pharmacist administer the HPV vaccine would not affect their relationship with their primary care provider. Caregivers preferred print health education resources and were interested in also receiving health information via social media to learn more about the HPV vaccine and pharmacists' role in HPV vaccine administration. Pharmacies may serve as an additional site to increase HPV vaccine initiation and completion. Rural regions need additional health information about the HPV vaccine and pharmacists' abilities to administer this cancer prevention resource.

Purpose: Immunocompromised populations including people living with HIV (PLWH) suffer disproportionate burden from anal cancer, a rare cancer caused by persistent infection of the anal canal with oncogenic strains of human papillomavirus. In the US, there are no nationally adopted screening guidelines for anal cancer. In the absence of such guidelines, this study explores healthcare practitioners' screening practices for early signs of anal cancer among PLWH., Methods: Between November 2017 and June 2018, the research team completed 25 interviews among a diverse sample of healthcare practitioners who provide care for PLWH., Results: Providers expressed frustration that screening and treatment guidelines for anal cancer were scant, and they varied in their screening practices. The majority of providers screened PLWH for anal dysplasia via the anal Pap smear; few providers were trained and had the medical equipment to conduct high-resolution anoscopy-guided biopsies, a more sensitive and specific screening method. Others screened through digital ano-rectal examinations (DARE) and both visually and with a DARE. Participants discussed how providers may be over-treating their patients who have high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and the role of biomarkers to determine whether the lesion is carcinogenic., Conclusions: Practitioners who provide care for PLWH are proactive in screening to help prevent and control anal cancer, a rare and slow-growing disease. Continuing to regularly surveil high-risk populations, particularly PLWH previously diagnosed with high-grade lesions, is critical to prevent and control anal cancer.

Purpose: This study explores HIV-positive gay and bisexual men's (GBM) understanding of human papillomavirus (HPV) and the HPV vaccine., Methods: Researchers conducted 15 in-depth interviews with HIV-positive GBM between the ages of 18-30 years old., Results: Two participants had received a single dose of the HPV vaccine. Otherwise, the majority of participants had either never heard of the HPV vaccine or they perceived it as a resource for women only. Other commonly cited barriers to getting the vaccine included lack of provider recommendation to complete the vaccine series and vaccine costs., Conclusions: Future provider-driven interventions should focus on increasing HPV vaccine among age-eligible HIV-positive GBM.

This study explores understanding of primary and secondary prevention of anal cancer among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected foreign-born Latino gay and bisexual men (GBM). Between August 2015 and December 2016, researchers conducted 33 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with HIV-infected foreign-born Latino GBM. Interview questions sought to determine participants' knowledge and perceived barriers and facilitators to primary and secondary prevention of anal cancer. Researchers analyzed interview transcripts using a qualitative content analysis approach. For primary prevention, men reported a lack of knowledge about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. However, for secondary prevention, roughly 60% of participants had previously screened for anal dysplasia via anal Papanicolaou (Pap) smear. However, participants reported willingness to screen, and provider recommendation was the most common screening facilitator. Men reported stigma related to their HIV status, sexual orientation, and anal Pap smear procedures as anal cancer screening barriers. Participants reported willingness to use a self-screening anal Pap smear test if it was commercially available. Health providers continue to be the leading source of health information. Therefore, provider recommendation for HPV vaccination and anal cancer screening among age-eligible foreign-born Latino HIV-infected GBM is critical. More work is needed to destigmatize HIV and sexual orientation to influence positive health behaviors among this population. Future intervention research could test the effects of provider-led interventions and also media campaigns aimed at influencing HPV vaccine uptake and anal cancer screening among this population.

Background: The incidence of anal cancer is on the rise among HIV-infected men who have sex with men (MSM). Given the increasing availability of screening, this study explored anal cancer screening awareness and behaviors among MSM infected with HIV., Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with 58 MSM infected with HIV., Results: Other than 2 participants treated for anal cancer and 3 treated for precancerous anal lesions, the majority of participants had never heard of anal cancer. Men reported lack of awareness and recommendations from their health care professionals as the greatest barriers to screening. Upon learning about their risk for anal cancer and the availability of screening, the men were eager to discuss screening with their physicians. Participants provided numerous recommendations for future interventions, including training health care professionals to promote screening, disseminating information pertaining to anal cancer through social networks, and creating media campaigns to raise awareness about the need to screen for this type of cancer., Conclusions: Future intervention work should focus on ensuring that health care professionals, particularly among HIV/primary care specialists, promote screening for anal dysplasia. It is critical that intervention methods use a community-based approach to raise awareness about the need to screen for anal cancer, especially among MSM infected with HIV.

The Tampa Bay Community Cancer Network (TBCCN) was formed as a partnership comprised of committed community based organizations (grassroots, service, health care organizations) and a National Cancer Institute designated cancer center working together to reduce cancer health disparities. Adhering to principles of community-based participatory research, TBCCN's primary aims are to develop and sustain outreach, training, and research programs that aim to reach medically underserved, multicultural and multilingual populations within the Tampa Bay tri-county area. Using a participatory evaluation approach, we recently evaluated the partnerships' priorities for cancer education and outreach; perspectives on the partnerships' adherence to CBPR principles; and suggestions for sustaining TBCCN and its efforts. The purpose of this paper is to describe implementation and outcomes of this participatory evaluation of a community/academic partnership, and to illustrate the application of evaluation findings for partnership capacity-building and sustainability. Our evaluation provides evidence for partners' perceived benefits and realized expectations of the partnership and illustrates the value of ongoing and continued partnership assessment to directly inform program activities and build community capacity and sustainability., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study explored federally qualified health center (FQHC) patients' perceptions about colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) tests, including immunochemical fecal occult blood tests (iFOBT), as well as preferences for receiving in-clinic education about CRCS. Eight mixed gender focus groups were conducted with 53 patients. Findings centered on three thematic factors: (1) motivators and impediments to CRCS, (2) test-specific preferences and receptivity to iFOBTs, and (3) preferences for entertaining and engaging plain language materials. Results informed the development of educational priming materials to increase CRCS using iFOBT in FQHCs.

Although screening reduces colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, screening rates are low, particularly among CRC patients' first-degree relatives (FDRs). Little is known about discussion of family members' risk of CRC among patients and their health care providers or with their FDRs. The purpose of this research, guided by the Protection Motivation Theory, was to assess patients' patterns of disclosure of CRC diagnosis to adult siblings and/or children and discussion of familial risk by healthcare providers. A cross-sectional sample of patients who received care at a comprehensive cancer center was recruited to complete telephone-based interviews related to disclosure of CRC diagnosis to FDRs, recall of physician counseling about familial risk, and patients' perception of CRC risk to FDRs. Sixty-nine patients completed the interview. Most participants (n = 67, 97%) had informed their adult children or siblings of their CRC diagnosis to keep their family informed of their health status (n = 15, 22%) and to encourage FDRs to screen for CRC (n = 14, 20%). More than half of the participants' physicians (n = 38, 55%) discussed FDRs' risk of developing CRC with the patient. However, a substantial proportion of patients reported no physician discussion of this risk (n = 28, 41%). Data from this study may guide the development of interventions to facilitate physician discussion and counseling of CRC patients about their FDRs' risk for CRC. However, future studies should explore whether FDRs are likely to be screened after becoming aware of their family member's diagnosis of CRC.

Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) rates are low among men and women who seek health care at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). This study explores health care providers' perspectives about their patient's motivators and impediments to CRCS and receptivity to preparatory education. A mixed methods design consisting of in-depth interviews, focus groups, and a short survey is used in this study. The participants of this study are 17 health care providers practicing in FQHCs in the Tampa Bay area. Test-specific patient impediments and motivations were identified including fear of abnormal findings, importance of offering less invasive fecal occult blood tests, and need for patient-centered test-specific educational materials in clinics. Opportunities to improve provider practices were identified including providers' reliance on patients' report of symptoms as a cue to recommend CRCS and overemphasis of clinic-based guaiac stool tests. This study adds to the literature on CRCS test-specific motivators and impediments. Providers offered unique approaches for motivating patients to follow through with recommended CRCS and were receptive to in-clinic patient education. Findings readily inform the design of educational materials and interventions to increase CRCS in FQHCs.

Training is an essential component of health programs that incorporate promotoras de salud (the Spanish term for community health workers) in the delivery of health education and behavioral interventions to Hispanics. During training sessions, promotoras are exposed to information and skill-building activities they need to implement the health programs. This analysis was one component of a broader study which explored program planners' approaches to recruiting and training promotoras to deliver and sustain health promotion programs for Hispanic women. The purpose of this study was to examine promotora-curriculum and training processes used to prepare promotoras to deliver health programs. The authors examined transcripts of 12 in-depth interviews with program planners and conducted a content analysis of seven different training materials used in their respective promotora programs. Interview themes and narratives included program planners' varying conceptualizations of promotora-training, including their personal definitions of "training the trainer," the practice of training a cadre of promotoras before selecting those best fit for the program, and the importance of providing goal-directed, in-depth training and supervision for promotoras. The content analysis revealed a variety of strategies used to make the training materials interactive and culturally competent. Study implications describe the importance of planners' provision of ongoing, goal-directed, and supervised training using both appropriate language and interactive methods to engage and teach promotoras.

There is widespread recognition of the cultural and linguistic appropriateness of (a Spanish term for community health workers [CHW]) in health education and outreach among Hispanic communities. Yet, there are significant gaps in the literature regarding the preparation, implementation, and evaluation of ' engagement in research. To address this gap, we examine ' research-related training, roles, responsibilities, and contributions in a community-based participatory research project involving a multisite randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a physical activity intervention for Mexican-origin women in Texas and South Carolina. We identify both benefits and challenges associated with ' engagement as community researchers; examine variations and differences in roles and responsibilities related to the research contexts, sites, settings, and individual characteristics; and discuss implications for research and practice.

Objective: Program planners work with promotoras (the Spanish term for female community health workers) to reduce health disparities among underserved populations. Based on the Role-Outcomes Linkage Evaluation Model for Community Health Workers (ROLES) conceptual model, we explored how program planners conceptualized the promotora role and the approaches and strategies they used to recruit, select, and sustain promotoras., Design: We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with a purposive convenience sample of 24 program planners, program coordinators, promotora recruiters, research principal investigators, and other individuals who worked closely with promotoras on United States-based health programs for Hispanic women (ages 18 and older)., Results: Planners conceptualized the promotora role based on their personal experiences and their understanding of the underlying philosophical tenets of the promotora approach. Recruitment and selection methods reflected planners' conceptualizations and experiences of promotoras as paid staff or volunteers. Participants described a variety of program planning and implementation methods. They focused on sustainability of the programs, the intended health behavior changes or activities, and the individual promotoras., Conclusion: To strengthen health programs employing the promotora delivery model, job descriptions should delineate role expectations and boundaries and better guide promotora evaluations. We suggest including additional components such as information on funding sources, program type and delivery, and sustainability outcomes to enhance the ROLES conceptual model. The expanded model can be used to guide program planners in the planning, implementing, and evaluating of promotora health programs.