Explore the vast range of titles available.

Conflicting information surrounding COVID-19 abounds, from disagreement over the effectiveness of face masks in preventing viral transmission to competing claims about the promise of certain treatments. Despite the potential for conflicting information about COVID-19 to produce adverse public health effects, little is known about whether the U.S. public notices this information, and whether certain population subgroups are particularly likely to do so. To address these questions, we fielded a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults in late April 2020 (N = 1,007). Results showed substantial self-reported exposure to conflicting information about COVID-19, with nearly 75% of participants reporting having recently heard such information from health experts, politicians, and/or others. Participants perceived disagreement across a range of COVID-19-related issues, though from politicians more than health experts. Factors including political affiliation, information source use, and personal experience with COVID-19 were associated with perceptions of disagreement. Future research should consider potential cognitive and behavioral consequences of such perceptions.

Conflicting health information is increasing in amount and visibility, as evidenced most recently by the controversy surrounding the risks and benefits of childhood vaccinations. The mechanisms through which conflicting information affects individuals are poorly understood; thus, we are unprepared to help people process conflicting information when making important health decisions. In this viewpoint article, we describe this problem, summarize insights from the existing literature on the prevalence and effects of conflicting health information, and identify important knowledge gaps. We propose a working definition of conflicting health information and describe a conceptual typology to guide future research in this area. The typology classifies conflicting information according to four fundamental dimensions: the substantive issue under conflict, the number of conflicting sources (multiplicity), the degree of evidence heterogeneity and the degree of temporal inconsistency.

Melanoma survivors are at increased risk of developing a second primary melanoma; however, some report sub-optimal sun behaviors and sunburns. We tested the effectiveness of a wearable device with ultraviolet radiation (UVR)-sensing technology to improve sun behaviors and reduce sunburns in cutaneous melanoma survivors. We conducted a randomized controlled trial using Shade 2, a commercially available wrist device that measures UVR. The intervention group received the device and mobile application notifications about their exposure and prompts to use sunscreen. The control group received the device and a separate research mobile application without information about their exposure or notifications. Participants wore the device for 12 weeks and self-reported sun behaviors before, during, and after the intervention. The primary outcome was a composite score of sun protection behaviors at week 12. 386 participants were randomized (186 control, 182 intervention). Most were female and 5+ years past their first melanoma diagnosis. The average age was 56 years. Most (93%) completed the study, though 40% experienced device issues. No meaningful differences were observed in self-reported sun protection behaviors at week 12 (controls 3.0±0.5 vs. intervention 2.9±0.5, p = 0.06), any sunburn during the intervention period (controls 14.4% vs. intervention 12.7%, p = 0.75), or average daily objective UVR exposure (controls median 87 vs. intervention 83 J/m2, p = 0.43). Wearing a device that measured and alerted melanoma survivors to UVR exposure did not result in different sun behaviors, exposure, or sunburns relative to controls. The technology needs refinement before further attempts to assess the effectiveness of self-monitoring UVR exposure. NCT03927742.

The U.S. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 requires updating of the existing text-only health warning labels on tobacco packaging with nine new warning statements accompanied by pictorial images. Survey and experimental research in the U.S. and other countries supports the effectiveness of pictorial health warning labels compared with text-only warnings for informing smokers about the risks of smoking and encouraging cessation. Yet very little research has examined differences in reactions to warning labels by race/ethnicity, education or income despite evidence that population subgroups may differ in their ability to process health information. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the potential impact of pictorial warning labels compared with text-only labels among U.S. adult smokers from diverse racial/ethnic and socioeconomic subgroups. Participants were adult smokers recruited from two online research panels (n = 3,371) into a web-based experimental study to view either the new pictorial warnings or text-only warnings. Participants viewed the labels and reported their reactions. Adjusted regression models demonstrated significantly stronger reactions for the pictorial condition for each outcome salience (b = 0.62, p<.001); perceived impact (b = 0.44, p<.001); credibility (OR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.22-1.62), and intention to quit (OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.10-1.53). No significant results were found for interactions between condition and race/ethnicity, education, or income. The only exception concerned the intention to quit outcome, where the condition-by-education interaction was nearly significant (p = 0.057). Findings suggest that the greater impact of the pictorial warning label compared to the text-only warning is consistent across diverse racial/ethnic and socioeconomic populations. Given their great reach, pictorial health warning labels may be one of the few tobacco control policies that have the potential to reduce communication inequalities across groups. Policies that establish strong pictorial warning labels on tobacco packaging may be instrumental in reducing the toll of the tobacco epidemic, particularly within vulnerable communities.

To test the effect of news media exposure to contradictory information about carbohydrates and dietary fats on levels of confusion, nutritional backlash and dietary intentions. We conducted an online survey experiment between 11 and 28 February 2018, randomizing participants to one of six experimental conditions. Two 'contradictory information' conditions asked participants to read one news article on the risks of a low-carbohydrate diet and one article on the risks of a low-fat diet. Two 'convergent information' conditions asked participants to read two articles with similar information on the risks of one of these two diets. A fifth 'established health recommendations' control condition asked participants to read two articles on the harms of smoking and sun exposure. A sixth 'no information' condition served as a second control group. We used general linear models to test hypotheses on the effects of exposure on confusion, nutritional backlash and dietary intentions. USA. Adults (n 901) registered with Amazon's Mechanical Turk (M-Turk). Exposure to contradictory information about carbohydrates and dietary fats increased confusion and nutritional backlash compared with exposure to established health recommendations for non-dietary behaviours and a no-exposure control. Exposure to contradictory information also increased confusion compared with exposure to consistent nutrition information regarding carbohydrates and dietary fats. Contradictory nutrition information in the news media can negatively affect consumers' attitudes, beliefs and behavioural intentions. Dietary debates that play out in the media may adversely influence both short-term dietary decisions and future efforts to communicate about unrelated nutrition issues.

BACKGROUND:Scientists, clinicians, and other experts aim to maximize the benefits of cancer screening while minimizing its harms. Chief among these harms are overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Although available data suggest that patient awareness of these harms is low, we know little about how patients respond to information about these phenomena. OBJECTIVES:Using the case of breast cancer screening, this study assesses women’s awareness of and reactions to statements about overdiagnosis and overtreatment. METHODS:We draw on data from a 2016 population-based survey of US women aged 35–55 years that oversampled women of lower socioeconomic position (those living at or below 100% of federal poverty level) (N=429). RESULTS:Results showed that women’s awareness of overdiagnosis (16.5%) and overtreatment (18.0%) was low, and women under age 40 were least likely to have heard about overdiagnosis. Most women did not evaluate statements about these harms positively<1 in 4 agreed with and found statements about overdiagnosis and overtreatment to be believable, and even fewer evaluated them as strong arguments to consider in their own mammography decision making. Women with a recent mammogram history were particularly unconvinced by overdiagnosis and overtreatment arguments. CONCLUSIONS:A majority of women were unaware of 2 important harms of breast cancer screeningoverdiagnosis and overtreatment. Most did not find statements about these harms to be believable and persuasive. Communication interventions, supported by evidence from health communication research, are necessary to improve patient understanding of screening’s harms, promote informed decision making, and, in turn, ensure high-value care.

Since its FDA approval in 2006, the Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has been politically-charged, given its association with sexual health among young women and its history of controversial, and largely unsuccessful, legislative mandates. The extent to which perceived politicization is related to public support for the vaccine’s use, however, is not clear. We sought to examine the relationship between public perceptions of politicization of the HPV vaccine and public support for HPV vaccine policies. We fielded a survey from May-June 2016 using a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (18–59 years). Among respondents aware of the HPV vaccine (n = 290), we predict support for HPV vaccine policies based on respondents’ perceptions of three characteristics of the vaccine’s portrayal in public discourse: degree of controversy, certainty of the scientific evidence supporting the vaccine’s use, and frequency with which the vaccine appears in political discussion. Respondents who perceived greater certainty about the scientific evidence for the HPV vaccine were more supportive of HPV vaccine policies (p < 0.0001) than respondents who perceived the scientific evidence to be uncertain, after adjusting for respondents’ characteristics, including demographics and partisanship. Public perceptions of the HPV vaccine’s politicization, particularly the portrayal of scientific evidence, are associated with receptivity to legislative mandates. How the certainty of a body of evidence gets communicated to the public may influence the policy process for a critical cancer prevention intervention.

Article 13 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) calls for a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship (TAPS), and Article 16 calls for prohibition of tobacco sales to and by minors. Although these mandates are based on sound science, many countries have found provision implementation to be rife with challenges. This paper reviews the history of tobacco marketing and minor access restrictions in high-, middle-, and low-income countries, identifying past challenges and successes. We consider current challenges to FCTC implementation, how these barriers can be addressed, and what research is necessary to support such efforts. Specifically, we identify implementation and research priorities for FCTC Articles 13 and 16. Although a solid evidence base underpins the FCTC's call for TAPS bans and minor access restrictions, we know substantially less about how best to implement these restrictions. Drawing on the regulatory experiences of high-, middle-, and low-income countries, we discern several implementation and research priorities, which are organized into 4 categories: policy enactment and enforcement, human capital expertise, the effects of FCTC marketing and youth access policies, and knowledge exchange and transfer among signatories. Future research should provide detailed case studies on implementation successes and failures, as well as insights into how knowledge of successful restrictions can be translated into tobacco control policy and practice and shared among different stakeholders. Tobacco marketing surveillance, sales-to-minors compliance checks, enforcement and evaluation of restriction policies, and capacity building and knowledge transfer are likely to prove central to effective implementation.

Background There is substantial expert disagreement about the use of mammography to screen for breast cancer, and this disagreement routinely plays out in the media. Evidence suggests that some women are aware of the controversy over mammography, but less is known about whether immigrant and other underserved women have heard about it and, if so, how they react to it. Objective To explore immigrant women's awareness of and reactions to mammography controversy. Design Community‐engaged qualitative study: we conducted six focus groups with 53 women aged 35–55 from three immigrant communities (Somali, Latina and Hmong) in a major US metropolitan area. A grounded theory approach was used to identify themes; NVivo 10 was used to enhance analyses. Results Several themes emerged: (i) low awareness of mammography controversy across groups, despite self‐reported attention to health information; (ii) high intentions to be screened, even after being told about the controversy; (iii) few reported discussions of mammography's risks and benefits with clinicians; (iv) substantial interest in learning more about mammography and breast cancer, but some low self‐efficacy to obtain such information; and (v) questions about whether health recommendations matter and what qualifies as evidence. Conclusion Given on‐going expert disagreement about mammography screening, it is important for clinicians to help women understand mammography's risks and benefits so they can make an informed choice. This is particularly critical for immigrant and other underserved women, who may be less able to access, attend to, process, retain and act on health information (a phenomenon known as communication inequality).