Explore the vast range of titles available.

The scientific community has come together in a mass mobilization to combat the public health risks of COVID-19, including efforts to develop a vaccine. However, the success of any vaccine depends on the share of the population that gets vaccinated. We designed a survey experiment in which a nationally representative sample of 3,133 adults in the USA stated their intentions to vaccinate themselves and their children for COVID-19. The factors that we varied across treatments were: the stated severity and infectiousness of COVID-19 and the stated source of the risk information (White House or the Centers for Disease Control). We find that 20% of people in the USA intend to decline the vaccine. We find no statistically significant effect on vaccine intentions from the severity of COVID-19. In contrast, we find that the degree of infectiousness of the coronavirus influences vaccine intentions and that inconsistent risk messages from public health experts and elected officials may reduce vaccine uptake. However, the most important determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy seem to be distrust of the vaccine safety (including uncertainty due to vaccine novelty), as well as general vaccine avoidance, as implied by not having had a flu shot in the last two years.

Background Front of pack food labels or signpost labels are currently widely discussed as means to help consumers to make informed food choices. It is hoped that more informed food choices will result in an overall healthier diet. There is only limited evidence, as to which format of a food label is best understood by consumers, helps them best to differentiate between more or less healthy food and whether these changes in perceived healthiness result in changes of food choice. Methods In a randomised experimental study in Hamburg/Germany 420 adult subjects were exposed to one of five experimental conditions: (1) a simple \"healthy choice\" tick, (2) a multiple traffic light label, (3) a monochrome Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) label, (4) a coloured GDA label and (5) a \"no label\" condition. In the first task they had to identify the healthier food items in 28 pair-wise comparisons of foods from different food groups. In the second task they were asked to select food portions from a range of foods to compose a one-day's consumption. Differences between means were analysed using ANOVAs. Results Task I: Experimental conditions differed significantly in the number of correct decisions (p < 0.001). In the condition \"no label\" subjects had least correct decisions (20.2 ± 3.2), in the traffic light condition most correct decisions were made (24.8 ± 2.4). Task II: Envisaged daily food consumption did not differ significantly between the experimental conditions. Conclusion Different food label formats differ in the understanding of consumers. The current study shows, that German adults profit most from the multiple traffic light labels. Perceived healthiness of foods is influenced by this label format most often. Nevertheless, such changes in perceived healthiness are unlikely to influence food choice and consumption. Attempts to establish the informed consumer with the hope that informed choices will be healthier choices are unlikely to change consumer behaviour and will not result in the desired contribution to the prevention of obesity and diet related diseases.

Suicide prevention organisations frequently use websites to educate the public, but evaluations of these websites are lacking. To examine the effects of educative websites and the moderating effect of participant vulnerability. A total of 161 adults were randomised to either view an educative website on suicide prevention or an unrelated website in a single-blinded randomised controlled trial (trial registration with the American Economic Association's registry: RCT-ID: 000924). The primary outcome was suicidal ideation; secondary outcomes were mood, suicide-prevention-related knowledge and attitudes towards suicide/seeking professional help. Data were collected using questionnaires before ( ), immediately after exposure ( ), and 1 week after exposure ( ) and analysed using linear mixed models. No significant intervention effect was identified for the entire intervention group with regard to suicidal ideation, but a significant and sustained increase in suicide-prevention-related knowledge ( < 0.001, = 1.12, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.28) and a non-sustained worsening of mood ( < 0.001, , = -0.59, -0.75 to -0.43) were observed. Participants with increased vulnerability experienced a partially sustained reduction of suicidal ideation ( , <0.001, = -0.34, -0.50 to -0.19). Educative professional suicide prevention websites appeared to increase suicide-prevention-related knowledge, and among vulnerable individuals website exposure may be associated with a reduction of suicidal ideation.

Background Older cancer patients may search for health information online to prepare for their consultations. However, seeking information online can have negative effects, for instance increased anxiety due to finding incorrect or unclear information. In addition, existing online cancer information is not necessarily adapted to the needs of older patients, even though cancer is a disease often found in older individuals. Objective The aim of this study was to systematically develop, implement and evaluate an online health information tool for older cancer patients, the Patient Navigator, providing information that complements the consultation with healthcare providers. Method For the development and evaluation of the Patient Navigator, the four phases of the MRC framework were used. In the first and second phase the Patient Navigator was developed and pilot tested based on previous research and sub-studies. During the third phase the Patient Navigator was implemented in four Dutch hospitals. In the last phase, a pilot RCT was conducted to evaluate the Patient Navigator in terms of usage (observational tracking data), user experience (self-reported satisfaction, involvement, cognitive load, active control, perceived relevance of the tool), patient participation (observational data during consultation), and patient outcomes related to the consultation (questionnaire data regarding anxiety, satisfaction, and information recall). Recently diagnosed colorectal cancer patients (N = 45) were randomly assigned to the control condition (usual care) or the experimental condition (usual care + Patient Navigator). Results The Patient Navigator was well used and evaluated positively. Patients who received the Patient Navigator contributed less during the consultation by using less words than patients in the control condition and experienced less anxiety two days after the consultation than patients in the control condition. Conclusion Since the Patient Navigator was evaluated positively and decreased anxiety after the consultation, this tool is potentially a valuable addition to the consultation for patients. Usage of the Patient Navigator resulted in patients using less words during consultations, without impairing patients’ satisfaction, possibly because information needs might be fulfilled by usage of the Patient Navigator. This could create the possibility to personalize communication during consultations and respond to other patient needs.

Uncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of different uncertainty descriptions regarding the evidence for a treatment effect in a written research summary for the public. We developed 8 versions of a research summary on a fictitious drug for tinnitus with varying degrees (Q1), sources (Q2), and magnitudes of uncertainty (Q3). We recruited 2099 members of the German public from a web-based research panel. Of these, 1727 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomly presented with one of these research summaries. Randomization was conducted by using a centralized computer with a random number generator. Web-based recruitment and data collection were fully automated. Participants were not aware of the purpose of the study and alternative presentations. We measured the following outcomes: perception of the treatment effectiveness (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence, text quality, and intended decision. The outcomes were self-assessed. For the primary outcome, we did not find a global effect for Q1 and Q2 (P=.25 and P=.73), but we found a global effect for Q3 (P=.048). Pairwise comparisons showed a weaker perception of treatment effectiveness for the research summary with 3 sources of uncertainty compared to the version with 2 sources of uncertainty (P=.04). Specifically, the proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that perceived the drug as possibly beneficial was 9% lower than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (92/195, 47.2% vs 111/197, 56.3%, respectively). The proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that considered the drug to be of unclear benefit was 8% higher than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (72/195, 36.9% vs 57/197, 28.9%, respectively). However, there was no significant difference compared to the version with 1 source of uncertainty (P=.31). We did not find any meaningful differences between the research summaries for the secondary outcomes. Communicating even a large magnitude of uncertainty for a treatment effect had little impact on the perceived effectiveness. Efforts to improve public understanding of research are needed to improve the understanding of evidence-based health information. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911. RR2-10.2196/13425.

Background There have been few studies of tailored interventions to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Purpose We conducted a randomized trial of a tailored, interactive intervention to increase CRC screening. Methods Patients 50–70 years completed a baseline survey, were randomized to one of three groups, and attended a wellness exam after being exposed to a tailored intervention about CRC screening (tailored group), a public web site about CRC screening (web site group), or no intervention (survey-only group). The primary outcome was completion of any recommended CRC screening by 6 months. Results There was no statistically significant difference in screening by 6 months: 30%, 31%, and 28% of the survey-only, web site, and tailored groups were screened. Exposure to the tailored intervention was associated with increased knowledge and CRC screening self-efficacy at 2 weeks and 6 months. Family history, prior screening, stage of change, and physician recommendation moderated the intervention effects. Conclusions A tailored intervention was not more effective at increasing screening than a public web site or only being surveyed.

Introduction In patients with diabetes, better health communication is associated with better health outcomes including medication adherence and glycaemic control. The conventional patient information leaflet does not consider the cultural and behavioral perspectives of diverse patient populations. Consumer medicine information (CMI) is a written information about the prescription drugs developed by organisations or individuals other than a drug manufacturer that is intended for distribution to consumers at the time of medication dispensing. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the impact of CMI on medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes in Qatar. Methods We developed and customised CMI for all the anti‐diabetic medications used in Qatar. A randomised controlled trial in which the intervention group patients (n = 66) received the customised CMI with usual care, while the control group patients (n = 74) received usual care only, was conducted. Self‐reported medication adherence and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) were the primary outcome measures. Glycaemic control and medication adherence parameters were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months in both groups. Medication adherence was measured using the 8‐item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS‐8). Results Although the addition of CMI resulted in better glycaemic control, this did not reach statistical significance, possibly because of the short‐term follow‐up. The median MMAS‐8 score improved from baseline (6.6 [IQR = 1.5]) to 6‐month follow‐up (7.0 [IQR = 1.00]) in the intervention group. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference between the intervention and the control groups in terms of MMAS‐8 score at the third visit (7.0 [IQR = 1.0]) vs 6.5 (IQR = 1.25; P‐value = .010). Conclusion CMI for anti‐diabetic medications when added to usual care has the potential to improve medication adherence and glycaemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, providing better health communication and CMI to patients with diabetes is recommended.

Background Lyme disease or Lyme borreliosis (LB) is the most common tick-borne disease both in the United States and Europe. Children, in particular, are at high risk of contracting LB. Since child-specific educational tools on ticks, tick bites and LB are lacking, we developed an online educational video game. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of an online educational video game versus a newly developed leaflet aimed to improve prevention of tick bites and LB among Dutch schoolchildren. Methods A total of 887 children, aged 9–13 years and attending the two final years of primary schooling, were recruited from 25 primary schools in June and July 2012. They were assigned through cluster randomization to one of three intervention groups: ‘game’ (22.4%), ‘leaflet’ (35.6%) or ‘control’ (41.9%). Prior to and directly following intervention, the children were asked to complete a short questionnaire. The main outcome measures were knowledge, perception (perceived susceptibility and importance) and preventive behavior in relation to tick bites and LB. Generalized linear mixed models were used to analyze the data. Results In the game group, the leaflet group and the control group, knowledge about ticks and tick bites improved significantly. The game was also an effective tool for improving preventive behavior; the frequency of checking for ticks increased significantly. However, there were no significant differences in knowledge improvement between the interventions. The game outperformed the leaflet in terms of improving preventive behavior, whereas the frequency of tick checks increased significantly. But this frequency didn’t increase more than in the control group. Conclusions The positive knowledge effects observed in the control group suggests the presence of a mere measurement effect related to completion of the questionnaire. The game did not outperform the leaflet or control group on all outcome measures. Therefore, the game may be of value as a complementary role, in addition to other media, in child-specific public health education programs on ticks and LB. This trial was retrospectively registered on October 21, 2016 (trial registration number: ISRCTN15142369).

Background Disadvantaged populations face many barriers to cancer care, including limited support in navigating through the complexities of the healthcare system. Family members play an integral role in caring for patients and provide valuable care coordination; however, the effect of family navigators on adherence to cancer screening has not previously been evaluated. Training and evaluating trusted family members and other support persons may improve cancer outcomes for vulnerable patients. Methods Guided by principles of community based participatory research (CBPR), “Evaluating Coaches of Older Adults for Cancer Care and Healthy Behaviors (COACH)” is a community-based randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a trained participant-designated coach (support person or care giver) in navigating cancer-screening for older African American adults, 50–74 years old. Participants are randomly assigned as dyads (participant + coach pair) to receiving either printed educational materials only (PEM—control group) or educational materials plus coach training (COACH—intervention group). We defined a coach as family member, friend, or other lay support person designated by the older adult. The coach training is designed as a one-time, 35- to 40-minute training consisting of: 1) a didactic session that covers the role of the coach, basic facts about colorectal, breast and cervical cancers (including risk factors, signs and symptoms and screening modalities), engaging the healthcare provider in cancer screening, insurance coverage for screening, and related healthcare issues, 2) three video skits addressing misconceptions about and planning for cancer screening, and 3) an interactive role-play session with the trainer to reinforce and practice strategies for encouraging the participant to get screened. The primary study outcome is the difference in the proportion of participants completing at least one of the recommended screenings (for breast, cervix or colorectal cancer) between the control and intervention groups. Discussion Building on trusted patient contacts to encourage cancer screening, COACH is a highly sustainable intervention in a high-risk population. It has the potential to minimize the effect of mistrust of the medical establishment on screening behaviors by mobilizing participants’ existing support networks. If effective, the intervention could have a high impact on health care disparities research across multiple diseases. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01613430 ). Registered June 5, 2012

Background The evidence-based guideline entitled guideline evidence-based health information emerged from the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine (DNEbM) and was published in February 2017. The guideline addresses providers of health information and its goal is to improve the quality of health information. In addition, we explored the competences of providers of health information and developed a training programme. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a training programme addressing providers of health information to support the application of the guideline evidence-based health information . We expected the intervention to improve the quality of health information in comparison to the provision of the guideline on its own. Methods/design The trial uses a superiority randomised control group design with 10 months’ follow-up. Twenty-six providers of health information (groups with up to ten members) will be enrolled to compare the intervention (guideline and training programme) with usual care (a publicly available guideline). The 5-day training programme comprises an evidence-based medicine training module and a module to prepare the application of the guideline. The primary outcome parameter is the quality of the health information. Quality is operationalised as the extent of adherence to the guideline’s recommendations. Each provider will prepare a single health information item informing a health-related decision on a topic freely chosen before randomisation. The quality of this information will be rated using the Mapping Health Information Quality (MAPPinfo) Checklist. An accompanying process evaluation will then be conducted. Discussion The study results should show whether the efficacy of the intervention justifies implementation of the training programme to enhance health information developers’ competences in evidence-based medicine and to ensure high-quality evidence-based health information (EBHI) in the long term. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96941060 . Registered on 7 March 2019.