Explore the vast range of titles available.

Misinformation about COVID-19 is common and has been spreading rapidly across the globe through social media platforms and other information systems. Understanding what the public knows about COVID-19 and identifying beliefs based on misinformation can help shape effective public health communications to ensure efforts to reduce viral transmission are not undermined. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and factors associated with COVID-19 misinformation in Australia and their changes over time. This prospective, longitudinal national survey was completed by adults (18 years and above) across April (n=4362), May (n=1882), and June (n=1369) 2020. Stronger agreement with misinformation was associated with younger age, male gender, lower education level, and language other than English spoken at home (P<.01 for all). After controlling for these variables, misinformation beliefs were significantly associated (P<.001) with lower levels of digital health literacy, perceived threat of COVID-19, confidence in government, and trust in scientific institutions. Analyses of specific government-identified misinformation revealed 3 clusters: prevention (associated with male gender and younger age), causation (associated with lower education level and greater social disadvantage), and cure (associated with younger age). Lower institutional trust and greater rejection of official government accounts were associated with stronger agreement with COVID-19 misinformation. The findings of this study highlight important gaps in communication effectiveness, which must be addressed to ensure effective COVID-19 prevention.

AbstractObjectiveTo investigate the effect of notifying women of their dense breasts on their psychosocial outcomes and health service use intentions.DesignMultisite parallel arm randomised controlled trial.SettingPopulation based breast screening programme in Queensland, Australia.ParticipantsWomen aged ≥40 years having screening and classified as having mammographically dense breasts (BI-RADS C-D from automated density measure).InterventionWomen were randomised equally to standard care (no notification of breast density), notification of breast density plus written health literacy sensitive information (intervention 1), or notification of density plus a link to online video based health literacy sensitive information (intervention 2).Main outcome measuresPsychological (feeling anxious, confused, or informed) and health service use intentions (general practitioner consultation related to breast density, supplemental screening) at 8 weeks post-screening.ResultsBetween September 2023 and July 2024, 3107 women (1030 control, 1003 intervention 1, and 1074 intervention 2) were randomised, and 2401 women (802 control, 776 intervention 1, and 823 intervention 2) with a mean age at baseline of 57.4 (standard deviation 9.9) years were included in the analysis. Compared with the control group, women who were notified of their dense breasts reported feeling significantly more anxious (intervention 1: odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.57; intervention 2: odds ratio 1.28, 1.07 to 1.54) and confused (intervention 1: odds ratio 1.92, 1.58 to 2.33; intervention 2: odds ratio 1.76, 1.46 to 2.13) and had significantly higher intentions to talk to their general practitioner about their screening results (intervention1: relative risk ratio 2.08, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.73; intervention 2: relative risk ratio 1.71, 1.31 to 2.25) and to rely on their general practitioner for supplemental screening advice (intervention 1: relative risk ratio 2.61, 1.80 to 3.79; intervention 2: relative risk ratio 2.29, 1.58 to 3.33). However, most women did not intend to have supplemental screening (control: 91.3%; intervention 1: 78.9%; intervention 2: 81.4%). Notified women did not feel more informed (intervention 1: odds ratio 0.83, 0.68 to 1.01; intervention 2: odds ratio 0.80, 0.66 to 0.97).ConclusionsWomen notified of their dense breasts felt anxious and confused, did not feel more informed to make decisions about their breast health, and wanted to be guided by their general practitioners. Notification of breast density as part of population based breast screening may have adverse outcomes including additional consultation burden on general practitioners to advise women.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12623000001695).

Guidance to address health literacy often focuses on health education rather than tools to facilitate action, despite action being important for self-management. This study evaluated an online intervention informed by health literate design principles and behavior change theory to reduce unhealthy snacking. 440 participants were recruited online and randomized to an intervention: 1) Health-literate action plan (guided implementation intention); 2) Standard action plan (self-guided implementation intention); 3) Education (healthy snacking fact-sheet). The primary outcome was self-reported unhealthy snacking. Follow-up was at 1 month. 373 participants (84.8%) completed follow-up. Half the sample had adequate health literacy (52%), and the other half had low (24%) or possibly low (25%) health literacy, as measured by Newest Vital Sign (NVS). At follow-up, lower health literacy was associated with more unhealthy snacks and there was no overall difference between intervention groups. However, participants with lower health literacy who used the health-literate action plan reported less unhealthy snacking compared to the standard action plan; the reverse was true for those with higher health literacy scores (b = 1.7, p = 0.03). People scoring 2 points below the mean NVS (M = 3.4, SD = 2.0) using the health-literate action plan reported eating 8 fewer serves of unhealthy snacks, whereas people scoring 2 points above the mean NVS reported eating 6 more serves of unhealthy snacks using the same tool. These findings suggest that the universal precautions approach currently recommended for health information may be less effective for facilitating action than tailoring to health literacy level. ANZCTR identifier: ACTRN12617001194358.

Low health literacy is associated with poorer health outcomes. A key strategy to address health literacy is a universal precautions approach, which recommends using health-literate design for all health interventions, not just those targeting people with low health literacy. This approach has advantages: Health literacy assessment and tailoring are not required. However, action plans may be more effective when tailored by health literacy. This study evaluated the impact of health literacy and action plan type on unhealthy snacking for people who have high BMI or type 2 diabetes (Aim 1) and the most effective method of action plan allocation (Aim 2). We performed a 2-stage randomised controlled trial in Australia between 14 February and 6 June 2019. In total, 1,769 participants (mean age: 49.8 years [SD = 11.7]; 56.1% female [n = 992]; mean BMI: 32.9 kg/m2 [SD = 8.7]; 29.6% self-reported type 2 diabetes [n = 523]) were randomised to 1 of 3 allocation methods (random, health literacy screening, or participant selection) and 1 of 2 action plans to reduce unhealthy snacking (standard versus literacy-sensitive). Regression analysis evaluated the impact of health literacy (Newest Vital Sign [NVS]), allocation method, and action plan on reduction in self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks (primary outcome) at 4-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes were perceived extent of unhealthy snacking, difficulty using the plans, habit strength, and action control. Analyses controlled for age, level of education, language spoken at home, diabetes status, baseline habit strength, and baseline self-reported serves of unhealthy snacks. Average NVS score was 3.6 out of 6 (SD = 2.0). Participants reported consuming 25.0 serves of snacks on average per week at baseline (SD = 28.0). Regarding Aim 1, 398 participants in the random allocation arm completed follow-up (67.7%). On average, people scoring 1 SD below the mean for health literacy consumed 10.0 fewer serves per week using the literacy-sensitive action plan compared to the standard action plan (95% CI: 0.05 to 19.5; p = 0.039), whereas those scoring 1 SD above the mean consumed 3.0 fewer serves using the standard action plan compared to the literacy-sensitive action plan (95% CI: -6.3 to 12.2; p = 0.529), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. In addition, we observed a non-significant action plan × health literacy (NVS) interaction (b = -3.25; 95% CI: -6.55 to 0.05; p = 0.054). Regarding Aim 2, 1,177 participants across the 3 allocation method arms completed follow-up (66.5%). There was no effect of allocation method on reduction of unhealthy snacking, including no effect of health literacy screening compared to participant selection (b = 1.79; 95% CI: -0.16 to 3.73; p = 0.067). Key limitations include low-moderate retention, use of a single-occasion self-reported primary outcome, and reporting of a number of extreme, yet plausible, snacking scores, which rendered interpretation more challenging. Adverse events were not assessed. In our study we observed nominal improvements in effectiveness of action plans tailored to health literacy; however, these improvements did not reach statistical significance, and the costs associated with such strategies compared with universal precautions need further investigation. This study highlights the importance of considering differential effects of health literacy on intervention effectiveness. Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12618001409268.

•Perceived public health threat is associated with intentions to vaccinate.•Those believing the efficacy of vaccines is made up were less willing to get vaccinated.•To protect myself and others was the top reason for getting the vaccine.•Safety concerns was the top reason against getting the vaccine. Vaccination rollout against COVID-19 is underway across multiple countries worldwide. Although the vaccine is free, rollout might still be compromised by hesitancy or concerns about COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted two online surveys of Australian adults in April (during national lockdown; convenience cross-sectional sample) and November (very few cases of COVID-19; nationally representative sample) 2020, prior to vaccine rollout. We asked about intentions to have a potential COVID-19 vaccine (If a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available, I will get it) and free-text responses (November only). After adjustment for differences in sample demographics, the estimated proportion agreeing to a COVID-19 vaccine if it became available in April (n = 1146) was 76.3%. In November (n = 1941) this was estimated at 71.5% of the sample; additional analyses identified that the variation was driven by differences in perceived public health threat between April and November. Across both surveys, female gender, being younger, having inadequate health literacy and lower education were associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, belief that data on the efficacy of vaccines is ‘largely made up’, having lower confidence in government, and lower perception of COVID-19 as a public health threat, were also associated with reluctance to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The top three reasons for agreeing to vaccinate (November only) were to protect myself and others, moral responsibility, and having no reason not to get it. For those who were indifferent or disagreeing to vaccinate, safety concerns were the top reason, followed by indecision and lack of trust in the vaccine respectively. These findings highlight some factors related to willingness to accept a COVID-19 vaccine prior to one being available in Australia. Now that the vaccine is being offered, this study identifies key issues that can inform public health messaging to address vaccine hesitancy.

To investigate whether culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities in Western Sydney have experienced any positive effects during the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, what these were. A cross-sectional survey with ten language groups was conducted from 21st March to 9th July 2021 in Sydney, Australia. Participants were recruited through bilingual multicultural health staff and health care interpreter service staff and answered a question, 'In your life, have you experienced any positive effects from the COVID-19 pandemic?' Differences were explored by demographic variables. Free-text responses were thematically coded using the Content Analysis method. 707 people completed the survey, aged 18 to >70, 49% males and 51% females. Only 161 (23%) of those surveyed reported any positive impacts. There were significant differences in the proportion of those who reported positives based on age (p = 0.004), gender (p = 0.013), language (p = 0.003), health literacy (p = 0.014), English language proficiency (p = 0.003), education (p = <0.001) and whether participants had children less than 18 years at home (p = 0.001). Content Analysis of open-ended responses showed that, of those that did report positives, the top themes were 'Family time' (44%), 'Improved self-care' (31%) and, 'Greater connection with others' (17%). Few surveyed participants reported finding any positives stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding is in stark contrast to related research in Australia with participants whose native language is English in which many more people experienced positives. The needs of people from CALD backgrounds must inform future responses to community crises to facilitate an equitable effect of any collateral positives that may arise.

In Australia in March 2020 a national public health directive required that non-essential workers stay at home, except for essential activities. These restrictions began easing in May 2020 as community transmission slowed. This study investigated changes in COVID prevention behaviours from April-July 2020, and psychosocial predictors of these behaviours. An Australia-wide (national) survey was conducted in April, with monthly follow-up over four months. Participants who were adults (18+ years), currently residing in Australia and who could read and understand English were eligible. Recruitment was via online social media. Analysis sample included those who provided responses to the baseline survey (April) and at least one subsequent follow-up survey (N = 1834 out of a possible 3216 who completed the April survey). 71.7% of the sample was female (n = 1,322). Principal components analysis (PCA) combined self-reported adherence across seven prevention behaviours. PCA identified two behaviour types: 'distancing' (e.g. staying 1.5m away) and 'hygiene' (e.g. washing hands), explaining 28.3% and 24.2% of variance, respectively. Distancing and hygiene behaviours were analysed individually using multivariable regression models. On average, participants agreed with statements of adherence for all behaviours (means all above 4 out of 7). Distancing behaviours declined each month (p's < .001), whereas hygiene behaviours remained relatively stable. For distancing, stronger perceptions of societal risk, self-efficacy to maintain distancing, and greater perceived social obligation at baseline were associated with adherence in June and July (p's<0.05). For hygiene, the only significant correlate of adherence in June and July was belief that one's actions could prevent infection of family members (p < .001). High adherence to COVID prevention behaviours were reported in this social media sample; however, distancing behaviours tended to decrease over time. Belief in social responsibility may be an important aspect to consider in encouraging distancing behaviours. These findings have implications for managing a shift from government-imposed restrictions to individual responsibility.

ObjectiveTo assess different strategies for communicating to older adults about stopping cancer screening.Design4 (recommendation statement about stopping screening)×(2; time) online survey-based randomised controlled trial.SettingAustralia.Participants271 English-speaking participants, aged 65–90, screened for breast/prostate cancer at least once in past decade.InterventionsTime 1: participants read a scenario in which their general practitioner (GP) informed them about the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening, followed by double-blinded randomisation to one of four recommendation statements to stop screening: control (‘this screening test would harm you more than benefit you’), health status (‘your other health issues should take priority’), life expectancy framed positively (‘this test would not help you live longer’) and negatively (‘you may not live long enough to benefit’). Time 2: in a follow-up scenario, the GP explained why guidelines changed over time (anchoring bias intervention).MeasuresPrimary outcomes: screening intention and cancer anxiety (10-point scale, higher=greater intention/anxiety), measured at both time points. Secondary outcomes: trust (in their GP, the information provided, the Australian healthcare system), decisional conflict and knowledge of the information presented.Results271 participants’ responses analysed. No main effects were found. However, screening intention was lower for the negatively framed life expectancy versus health status statement (6.0 vs 7.1, mean difference (MD)=1.1, p=0.049, 95% CI 0.0 to 2.2) in post hoc analyses. Cancer anxiety was lower for the negatively versus positively framed life expectancy statement (4.8 vs 5.8, MD=1.0, p=0.025, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.9). The anchoring bias intervention reduced screening intention (MD=0.8, p=0.044, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0) and cancer anxiety (MD=0.3, p=0.002, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) across all conditions.ConclusionOlder adults may reduce their screening intention without reporting increased cancer anxiety when clinicians use a more confronting strategy communicating they may not live long enough to benefit and add an explicit explanation why the recommendation has changed.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001306202; Results).

Central to a successful population vaccination program is high uptake of vaccines. However, COVID-19 vaccine uptake may be impeded by beliefs based on misinformation. We sought to understand the prevalence and nature of misbeliefs about COVID-19 vaccines, and identify associated factors, shortly after commencement of Australia’s national vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional survey was administered to unvaccinated young adults (n = 2050) in Australia aged 18–49 years (mean age 33 years), 13 July–21 August 2021. This sample was previously under-represented in COVID-19 research but shown to have less willingness to vaccinate. Two thirds of participants agreed with at least one misbelief item. Misperceptions about COVID-19 vaccines were found to be significantly associated with lower health literacy, less knowledge about vaccines, lower perceived personal risk of COVID-19, greater endorsement of conspiracy beliefs, and lower confidence and trust in government and scientific institutions. Misbeliefs were more common in participants with less educational attainment, in younger age groups, and in males, as per previous research. Understanding determinants and barriers to vaccination uptake, such as knowledge and beliefs based on misinformation, can help to shape effective public health communication and inform debunking efforts at this critical time and in the future.

BackgroundTo investigate whether culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities in Western Sydney have experienced any positive effects during the COVID-19 pandemic, and if so, what these were.MethodsA cross-sectional survey with ten language groups was conducted from 21st March to 9th July 2021 in Sydney, Australia. Participants were recruited through bilingual multicultural health staff and health care interpreter service staff and answered a question, 'In your life, have you experienced any positive effects from the COVID-19 pandemic?' Differences were explored by demographic variables. Free-text responses were thematically coded using the Content Analysis method.Results707 people completed the survey, aged 18 to >70, 49% males and 51% females. Only 161 (23%) of those surveyed reported any positive impacts. There were significant differences in the proportion of those who reported positives based on age (p = 0.004), gender (p = 0.013), language (p = 0.003), health literacy (p = 0.014), English language proficiency (p = 0.003), education (p = <0.001) and whether participants had children less than 18 years at home (p = 0.001). Content Analysis of open-ended responses showed that, of those that did report positives, the top themes were 'Family time' (44%), 'Improved self-care' (31%) and, 'Greater connection with others' (17%).DiscussionFew surveyed participants reported finding any positives stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding is in stark contrast to related research in Australia with participants whose native language is English in which many more people experienced positives. The needs of people from CALD backgrounds must inform future responses to community crises to facilitate an equitable effect of any collateral positives that may arise.