Cancer Risk Communication in Mainstream and Ethnic Newspapers

Introduction: We wanted to understand how cancer risks are communicated in mainstream and ethnic newspapers, to determine whether the 2 kinds of newspapers differ and to examine features of news stories and sources that might predict optimal risk communication. Methods: Optimal risk communication was defined as presenting the combination of absolute risk, relative risk, and prevention response efficacy information. We collected data by conducting a content analysis of cancer news coverage from 2003 (5,327 stories in major newspapers, 565 stories in ethnic newspapers). Comparisons of mainstream and ethnic newspapers were conducted by using cross-tabulations and Pearson χ2 tests for significance. Logistic regression equations were computed to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for optimal risk communication. Results: In both kinds of newspapers, cancer risks were rarely communicated numerically. When numeric presentations of cancer risks were used, only 26.2% of mainstream and 29.5% of ethnic newspaper stories provided estimates of both absolute and relative risk. For both kinds of papers, only 19% of news stories presented risk communication optimally. Cancer risks were more likely to be communicated optimally if they focused on prostate cancer, were reports of new research, or discussed medical or demographic risks. Conclusion: Research is needed to understand how these nonnumeric and decontextualized presentations of risk might contribute to inaccurate risk perceptions among news consumers

Making sense of cancer news coverage trends: a comparison of three comprehensive content analyses

Cancer stories (N = 5,327) in the top 50 U.S. newspapers were analyzed by a team of four coders and the results were compared with the earliest analyses of this type (from 1977 and 1980). Using cancer incidence rates as a comparison, three cancers were found to be consistently underreported (male Hodgkin’s, and thyroid) and four cancers were found to be consistently overreported (breast, blood/Leukemia, pancreatic, and bone/muscle). In addition, cancer news coverage consistently has focused on treatment rather than on other aspects of the cancer continuum (e.g., prevention), portrayed lifestyle choices (e.g., diet, smoking) as the most common cancer risk factor, and rarely reported incidence or mortality data. Finally, the data were compatible with the idea that personalization bias (e.g., celebrity profiles, event coverage) may explain some news coverage distortions

短報

<p>Total Sample Size (2009–2015) N = 9023.</p

PrEP Awareness and Attitudes in a National Survey of Primary Care Clinicians in the United States, 2009-2015.

OBJECTIVES:As trials were assessing the safety and efficacy of daily oral antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of HIV infection, there was a clear need to understand the evolution of knowledge of, and attitudes toward, PrEP among primary care clinicians. METHODS:Physicians and nurse practitioners were surveyed in 2009 (n = 1500), 2010 (n = 1504), 2012 (n = 1503), 2013 (n = 1507), 2014 (n = 1508) and 2015 (n = 1501) to assess their awareness of PrEP, willingness to prescribe PrEP, and whether they support use of public funds to pay for PrEP. Pharmacists (n = 251) were surveyed about PrEP in 2012 only. Descriptive statistics were computed for physician demographics and PrEP-related questions. Prevalence ratios for willingness to prescribe PrEP were computed using Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS:Awareness of PrEP was low among clinicians (2009: 24%, 2010: 29%) but increased after trials reported effectiveness (2012: 49%, 2013: 51%, 2014: 61%, 2015: 66%). Following a description of PrEP with an estimated effectiveness of 75%, across 6 of the study years 91% of clinicians indicated a willingness to prescribe PrEP to at least one group at high risk of HIV acquisition. A smaller majority of clinicians indicated support for public funding of PrEP in 2009: 59%, 2010: 53%, and 2013: 63%. CONCLUSIONS:In surveys conducted before and after the release of PrEP trial results, primary care clinicians were largely unaware of PrEP. They indicated high levels of willingness to prescribe it for patients at high risk of HIV acquisition and expressed interest in education about how to deliver this new clinical HIV prevention method. It will be important to continue monitoring clinician knowledge, attitudes, and practices as the use of PrEP increases in the US

Awareness of PrEP and Willingness to Prescribe PrEP to Persons with Selected Risks for HIV Acquisition by Provider Type, DocStyles, 2009–2015, United States.

<p>Awareness of PrEP and Willingness to Prescribe PrEP to Persons with Selected Risks for HIV Acquisition by Provider Type, DocStyles, 2009–2015, United States.</p

Awareness of PrEP and Willingness to Prescribe PrEP to Persons with Selected Risks for HIV Acquisition by Survey Year, DocStyles, 2009–2015, United States.

<p>Awareness of PrEP and Willingness to Prescribe PrEP to Persons with Selected Risks for HIV Acquisition by Survey Year, DocStyles, 2009–2015, United States.</p

Association of Clinician Characteristics with Willingness to Prescribe PrEP: DocStyles 2009–2015, United States.

<p>Association of Clinician Characteristics with Willingness to Prescribe PrEP: DocStyles 2009–2015, United States.</p

Measuring Nonsolar Tanning Behavior: Indoor and Sunless Tanning

Objective To develop items to measure indoor tanning and sunless tanning that can be used to monitor trends in population surveys or to assess changes in behavior in intervention studies. Design A group of experts on indoor tanning convened in December 2005, as part of a national workshop to review the state of the evidence, define measurement issues, and develop items for ever tanned indoors, lifetime frequency, and past-year frequency for both indoor tanning and sunless tanning. Each item was subsequently assessed via in-person interviews for clarity, specificity, recall, and appropriateness of wording. Setting Universities in Tennessee and Virginia, a medical center in Massachusetts, and a high school in New Hampshire. Participants The study population comprised 24 adults and 7 adolescents. Results Participants understood indoor tanning to represent tanning from beds, booths, and lamps that emit artificial UV radiation, rather than sunless tanning, even though both can be obtained from a booth. Two items were required to distinguish manually applied from booth-applied sunless tanning products. Frequency of use was easier for participants to recall in the past year than for a lifetime. Conclusions While indoor tanning items may be recommended with confidence for clarity, sunless tanning items require additional testing. Memory aids may be necessary to facilitate recall of lifetime use of nonsolar tanning. In addition, studies that assess reliability and validity of these measures are needed. Since study participants were primarily young and female, testing in other populations should also be considered