A Message-Centered Approach to Understanding Young Women’s Decision-making about HPV Vaccination

The HPV vaccine represents an important step in the primary prevention of cervical cancer, yet uptake rates for the vaccine remain below what is needed to establish herd immunity from the virus. While many studies have examined both psychosocial and communication factors affecting HPV vaccination decisions, this study adopts a unique approach to understand the communication environment within which this health decision happens, such as the many and sometimes conflicting messages about vaccine efficacy and safety guiding young women\u27s decisions. Using the message convergence framework, this project identifies how further study of converging and diverging messages in the communication environment in which young women make their vaccination decision can extend research in considering optimal communication strategies to enhance demand for HPV vaccination. In Study 1, 39 unvaccinated women participated in qualitative interviews and were asked questions in order to understand the important elements of the HPV vaccination communication environment that affected their decision (i.e., common sources and content of messages, how they discussed these messages interacting and influencing their decision). Study 2 builds on the findings of Study 1 by employing an experimental design to test different message convergence conditions on women\u27s intent to vaccinate (e.g., what happens when a doctor and a family member give conflicting information and recommendations about HPV vaccination?). Three hundred and nine unvaccinated women were randomly assigned to one of nine experimental message conditions and then assessed on behavioral intentions. Support was found for the message convergence framework. This project represents the first formal testing of the message convergence framework and the first time it has been used in the health context. The findings from these studies are discussed in terms of the implications for future cervical cancer research and prevention campaigns, as well as the utility of the message convergence framework for other health communication research topics in which researchers are seeking to better understand and consider the communication environment when designing health behavior interventions

Tanning bed use, deviance regulation theory, and source factors

Tanning bed use, especially among young, white females, has become a serious health problem in the United States. Those who use tanning beds value a tanned appearance; thus, one possible way to get individuals to stop using tanning beds is to persuade them to begin using an alternative method: a sunless tanner. This study sought to use persuasive messages to encourage individuals to both stop using tanning beds and start using a sunless tanner. Deviance Regulation Theory (DRT) was used to design three messages, and source expertise was manipulated (high and low). In addition, attitudes, perceived norms, benefits and threats about tanning were examined. Results indicate that the combination of DRT message design and source expertise produced several message conditions that were effective at decreasing tanning bed use intent. No combined message condition was effective at changing sunless tanner use intent. DRT message design alone did not produce results, nor did source expertise. Tanning attitudes were influenced by reference groups, and perceived norms about tanning predicted individual‘s tanning bed use for several reference groups. In addition, there was an interaction between benefits and threats of tanning

HPV Vaccination Among Young Adult Women: A Perspective From Appalachian Kentucky

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have assessed barriers to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake and adherence, particularly among women of Appalachian Kentucky, a population with higher rates of cervical cancer, lower rates of HPV vaccination, and lower socioeconomic status compared with the rest of the nation. The objective of this study was to address women\u27s reasons for declining the HPV vaccine and, among women who initiated the vaccine series, barriers to completion of the 3-dose regimen. METHODS: We recruited 17 women aged 18 to 26 from a Federally Qualified Health Center who participated in in-depth, semistructured telephone interviews. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim; analysis of the interview transcripts was an iterative process conducted by all 3 authors. RESULTS: We identified 3 primary barriers: 1) a knowledge gap wherein women are both uninformed and misinformed about cervical cancer, HPV, and the HPV vaccine, all of which affect vaccination behaviors; 2) environmental and tangible barriers (transportation and prioritizing health over other responsibilities such as child care, work, and school); and 3) ambiguous information sources, which contribute to misinformation and subsequently affect vaccination decisions. CONCLUSION: Health professionals should use clear and purposeful communication about how cervical cancer develops, the purpose and safety of the HPV vaccine, and the necessity of completing the 3-dose series. Health promotion campaigns and services tailored for young women in Appalachian Kentucky that focus on increasing knowledge and eliminating barriers are needed

The Influence of Everyday Interpersonal Communication on the Medical Encounter: An Extension of Street’s Ecological Model

Street’s ecological model has shaped the research-examining communication during medical encounters for over a decade. Although the model accounts for the variety of contexts that shape the conversations in which patients and health-care providers engage, the model does not adequately address the way that everyday conversations about health carry over into patient–provider interactions. In this essay, we propose an extension of Street’s model that adds the context of everyday communication about health as a contributing factor in the medical encounter. We support the need for this extension by discussing research that points to the ways these conversations with our social network influence communication during the medical encounter and propose new areas for research based on this extension

Identifying sources of patient dissatisfaction when seeking care for a chronic and complex disease

Patients’ evaluations of healthcare often rely on patient satisfaction and encounter-specific approaches. Instead, valuable information can be gained by focusing on patient dissatisfaction with healthcare over time. This study examined patients’ sources of care dissatisfaction when seeking healthcare for a long-term chronic and complex disease (CCD). Participants with a CCD called polycystic kidney disease (N=387) completed an online questionnaire with an open-ended question about dissatisfying experiences. Content analysis was used to analyze responses. The coded data resulted in conceptual codes related to dissatisfaction with information, support, and care management. Analysis revealed the type of healthcare provider is often mentioned, and that more than one type of dissatisfaction can occur at the same time. Patients with CCDs are experiencing a variety of types of dissatisfaction when seeking healthcare, which may point to ongoing communication gaps between patients and the healthcare providers they see over time for their disease. Providers who see patients with CCDs should remember these patients may see multiple providers over time and have unique support needs. Providers can potentially improve care experiences by helping patients manage their care across both providers and experiences, as well as encourage patients to ask questions and express their concerns. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://theberylinstitute.org/experience-framework/). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Implications for Training on Smartphone Medication Reminder App Use by Adults With Chronic Conditions: Pilot Study Applying the Technology Acceptance Model

Background: The majority of middle-aged to older patients with chronic conditions report forgetting to take medications as prescribed. The promotion of patients’ smartphone medication reminder app (SMRA) use shows promise as a feasible and cost-effective way to support their medication adherence. Providing training on SMRA use, guided by the technology acceptance model (TAM), could be a promising intervention to promote patients’ app use. Objective: The aim of this pilot study was to (1) assess the feasibility of an SMRA training session designed to increase patients’ intention to use the app through targeting perceived usefulness of app, perceived ease of app use, and positive subjective norm regarding app use and (2) understand the ways to improve the design and implementation of the training session in a hospital setting. Methods: A two-group design was employed. A total of 11 patients older than 40 years (median=58, SD=9.55) and taking 3 or more prescribed medications took part in the study on one of two different dates as participants in either the training group (n=5) or nontraining group (n=6). The training group received an approximately 2-hour intervention training session designed to target TAM variables regarding one popular SMRA, the Medisafe app. The nontraining group received an approximately 2-hour control training session where the participants individually explored Medisafe app features. Each training session was concluded with a one-time survey and a one-time focus group. Results: Mann-Whitney U tests revealed that the level of perceived ease of use (P=.13) and the level of intention to use an SMRA (P=.33) were higher in the training group (median=7.00, median=6.67, respectively) than in the nontraining group (median=6.25, median=5.83). However, the level of perceived usefulness (U=4.50, Z=−1.99, P=.05) and the level of positive subjective norm (P=.25) were lower in the training group (median=6.50, median=4.29) than in the nontraining group (median=6.92, median=4.50). Focus groups revealed the following participants’ perceptions of SMRA use in the real-world setting that the intervention training session would need to emphasize in targeting perceived usefulness and positive subjective norm: (1) the participants would find an SMRA to be useful if they thought the app could help address specific struggles in medication adherence in their lives and (2) the participants think that their family members (or health care providers) might view positively the participants’ SMRA use in primary care settings (or during routine medical checkups). Conclusions: Intervention training session, guided by TAM, appeared feasible in targeting patients’ perceived ease of use and, thereby, increasing intention to use an SMRA. Emphasizing the real-world utility of SMRA, the training session could better target patients’ perceived usefulness and positive subjective norm that are also important in increasing their intention to use the app. [JMIR Formativ Res 2017;1(1):e5

Examining the benefits and harms of Alzheimer's disease screening for family members of older adults: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Multiple national expert panels have identified early detection of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) as a national priority. However, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) does not currently support screening for ADRD in primary care given that the risks and benefits are unknown. The USPSTF stresses the need for research examining the impact of ADRD screening on family caregiver outcomes. METHODS: The Caregiver Outcomes of Alzheimer's Disease Screening (COADS) is a randomized controlled trial that will examine the potential benefits or harms of ADRD screening on family caregivers. It will also compare the effectiveness of two strategies for diagnostic evaluation and management after ADRD screening. COADS will enroll 1800 dyads who will be randomized into three groups (n = 600/group): the 'Screening Only' group will receive ADRD screening at baseline and disclosure of the screening results, with positive-screen participants receiving a list of local resources for diagnostic follow-up; the 'Screening Plus' group will receive ADRD screening at baseline coupled with disclosure of the screening results, with positive-screen participants referred to a dementia collaborative care program for diagnostic evaluation and potential care; and the control group will receive no screening. The COADS trial will measure the quality of life of the family member (the primary outcome) and family member mood, anxiety, preparedness and self-efficacy (the secondary outcomes) at baseline and at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Additionally, the trial will examine the congruence of depressive and anxiety symptoms between older adults and family members at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months and compare the effectiveness of two strategies for diagnostic evaluation and management after ADRD screening between the two groups randomized to screening (Screening Only versus Screening Plus). DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that caregivers in the screening arms will express higher levels of health-related quality of life, lower depressive and anxiety symptoms, and better preparation for caregiving with higher self-efficacy at 24 months. Results from this study will directly inform the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease, the USPSTF and other organizations regarding ADRD screening and early detection policies

Who Should Decide? Decision-Making Preferences for Primary HPV Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening Among U.S. Women

Revised U.S. guidelines for cervical cancer screening provide the option of primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, Pap testing, or co-testing. Primary HPV testing has not yet been an option for American women, and women may be reluctant to change screening methods. The purpose of this study was to assess correlates of women’s preferences for primary HPV testing decision-making (self, provider, or shared) for cervical cancer screening. Women, aged 30-65, completed an online survey in June of 2018 (n = 812). The outcome variable was preference for decision-making for an HPV test instead of a Pap test on a scale of, healthcare provider, me, or shared. Predictor variables included testing attitudes, social norms, information seeking, previous screening, and socio-demographics. Women who disagreed that people important to them think that they should get the HPV test instead of a Pap test, who were not willing to receive an HPV test instead of a Pap test, and who did not receive HPV vaccinations were less likely to include a provider in their decision-making. In contrast, women who were not up-to-date with their cervical cancer screenings, who had some college or technical level education, or who were over 50 years of age were more likely to prefer to have a healthcare provider included in their decision-making process. While some variation was discovered, women mostly preferred a shared decision or personal decision for HPV testing. Resources to facilitate the decision-making process about this new option for cervical cancer screening are needed

Influenza vaccination in the time of COVID-19: A national U.S. survey of adults

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.Introduction Decisions about influenza vaccination for fall-winter 2020 were made against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. During May 2020, the authors examined intended vaccination in the next 12 months in relationship to demographic variables, healthcare attitudes, and personal COVID-19 experiences for two samples of adults--those who did not receive influenza vaccine during the prior 12 months, and those who did. Methods In May 2020, a cross-sectional online survey was conducted with a national US sample. Participants reported prior influenza vaccination (yes/no during prior 12 months) and anticipated vaccination (yes/no during next 12 months). Covariates included demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race-ethnicity, political ideology), general beliefs (e.g., benefits of vaccines, altruistic attitudes), and COVID-19 health beliefs and experiences (COVID-19 worry and severity, perception of COVID-19 as a community threat, knowing someone with COVID-19). For each group, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was conducted with intent to vaccinate as the outcome. Results Among participants (n = 3502), 47% did not receive influenza vaccine in the prior 12 months and 53% had; 25.5% of non-vaccinators and 91.9% of vaccinators intended future vaccination. For non-vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with race/ethnicity (Hispanics were more likely to intend than white-NH; AOR = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.23–2.4), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.88–2.54), and perception of COVID-19 as a community threat (AOR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.49–2.45). For vaccinators, odds of intending vaccination was associated with age (AOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.03–1.05), race/ethnicity (Black-NH and Other-NH were less likely to intend than white-NH, AOR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.36–0.999; and AOR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.24–0.84, respectively), greater perceived benefits of vaccination (AOR = 1.88; 95% CI = 1.45–2.45) and greater perception of collective benefits of vaccines (AOR = 1.48; 95% CI = 1.15–1.90). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic may have served as a cue to action for influenza vaccination intention among some prior non-vaccinators whereas intention among prior vaccinators is more related to positive attitudes toward vaccination

Public perceptions of the effectiveness of recommended non-pharmaceutical intervention behaviors to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented public health threat, both in scope and response. With no vaccine available, the public is advised to practice non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPI) including social distancing, mask-wearing, and washing hands. However, little is known about public perceptions of the effectiveness of these measures, and high perceived effectiveness is likely to be critical in order to achieve widespread adoption of NPI. Methods: In May 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey among U.S. adults (N = 3,474). The primary outcome was a six-item measure assessing perceived effectiveness of recommended behaviors to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection from 1 (not at all effective) to 5 (extremely effective). The sample was divided into "higher" and "lower" perceived effectiveness groups. Covariates included demographics, healthcare characteristics, and health beliefs. Variables that were significant at p<0.01 in bivariate analyses were entered into a multivariable logistic regression and a best-fit model was created using a cutoff of p<0.01 to stay in the model. Results: Mean age was 45.5 years and most participants were non-Hispanic White (63%) and female (52.4%). The high perceived effectiveness group was slightly larger than the low perceived effectiveness group (52.7% vs. 47.3%). Almost all health belief variables were significant in the best-fit regression model. COVID-19-related worry (aOR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.64-2.02), and perceived threat to physical health (aOR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.20-1.45) were positively associated with perceived effectiveness while perceived severity of COVID-19 (0.84; 95% CI = 0.73-0.96) and perceived likelihood of infection (0.85; 95% CI = 0.77-0.94) switched directions in the adjusted model and were negatively associated with perceived effectiveness. Conclusions: This research indicates people generally believe NPI are effective, but there was variability based on health beliefs and there are mixed rates of engagement in these behaviors. Public health efforts should focus on increasing perceived severity and threat of SARS-CoV-2-related disease, while promoting NPI as effective in reducing threat.This study was funded by internal grants at Purdue University (MLK), Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (KJH), Indiana University Health (JAH), and the Indiana University School of Medicine (GDZ). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript