Health communication research and practice at the level of government, foundations, public policy, and NGOs

Health communication as a field of scientific endeavor and practice in the 21st century is multifaceted. It covers the traditional public health campaigns by which a well-crafted message can raise awareness of a danger, pique motivation, and instill clarity for personal action. At a population level, these broad ranging campaigns have the potential of reaching substantial numbers of the population quickly, as was necessary during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic of 2020;and they can reduce risks of mortality from chronic disease, as has been the case with the multitude of hours invested in tobacco control efforts. At a clinical level, frameworks for patient-centered health communication have emerged that support the indispensable functions of conveying information, supporting decision-making, fostering healing relationships, enabling patient self-management, managing uncertainty, and responding to emotions. At the contextual level, advances in health communication technologies have extended the reach and cost-effectiveness of health communication interventions through just-in-time adaptive interventions;mobile, always available, communication response systems;structured decision-support architectures;and community-based platforms for local, targeted messaging, to name just a few. To realize the promise of this work, the field has expanded in its interdisciplinary reach. Schools of communication expand their reach by forging intellectual alliances with schools of psychology, computer technology, public health, medicine, sociology, anthropology, social work, and even business. Academic theoreticians contribute to the process by identifying the pathways, tested through hypothesis-driven discovery, by which health-related communications are perceived, internalized, and acted upon across audiences and populations. Methodologists and surveillance researchers contribute evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of different public health interventions to facilitate a self-correcting path toward greater communication coherence. Interventionists assume the indispensable responsibility for translating theoretical understanding and evidence-based approaches into efficacious and replicable programs. Professional opportunities in health communication now span the gamut from the university to the private sector to work within government and work within nongovernmental foundations and non-profits. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Designing a Framework for Remote Cancer Care Through Community Co-design: Participatory Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent shifts to telemedicine and remote patient monitoring demonstrate the potential for new technology to transform health systems; yet, methods to design for inclusion and resilience are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to design and implement a participatory framework to produce effective health care solutions through co-design with diverse stakeholders. METHODS: We developed a design framework to cocreate solutions to locally prioritized health and communication problems focused on cancer care. The framework is premised on the framing and discovery of problems through community engagement and lead-user innovation with the hypothesis that diversity and inclusion in the co-design process generate more innovative and resilient solutions. Discovery, design, and development were implemented through structured phases with design studios at various locations in urban and rural Kentucky, including Appalachia, each building from prior work. In the final design studio, working prototypes were developed and tested. Outputs were assessed using the System Usability Scale as well as semistructured user feedback. RESULTS: We co-designed, developed, and tested a mobile app (myPath) and service model for distress surveillance and cancer care coordination following the LAUNCH (Linking and Amplifying User-Centered Networks through Connected Health) framework. The problem of awareness, navigation, and communication through cancer care was selected by the community after framing areas for opportunity based on significant geographic disparities in cancer and health burden resource and broadband access. The codeveloped digital myPath app showed the highest perceived combined usability (mean 81.9, SD 15.2) compared with the current gold standard of distress management for patients with cancer, the paper-based National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (mean 74.2, SD 15.8). Testing of the System Usability Scale subscales showed that the myPath app had significantly better usability than the paper Distress Thermometer (t63=2.611; P=.01), whereas learnability did not differ between the instruments (t63=-0.311; P=.76). Notable differences by patient and provider scoring and feedback were found. CONCLUSIONS: Participatory problem definition and community-based co-design, design-with methods, may produce more acceptable and effective solutions than traditional design-for approaches.

Digital Health Engagement in the US Population: Insights From the 2018 Health Information National Trends Survey.

Objectives. To examine prevalence and predictors of digital health engagement among the US population. Methods. We analyzed nationally representative cross-sectional data on 7 digital health engagement behaviors, as well as demographic and socioeconomic predictors, from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 5, cycle 2, collected in 2018; n = 2698-3504). We fitted multivariable logistic regression models using weighted survey responses to generate population estimates. Results. Digitally seeking health information (70.14%) was relatively common, whereas using health apps (39.53%) and using a digital device to track health metrics (35.37%) or health goal progress (38.99%) were less common. Digitally communicating with one's health care providers (35.58%) was moderate, whereas sharing health data with providers (17.20%) and sharing health information on social media (14.02%) were uncommon. Being female, younger than 65 years, a college graduate, and a smart device owner positively predicted several digital health engagement behaviors (odds ratio range = 0.09-4.21; P value range < .001-.03). Conclusions. Many public health goals depend on a digitally engaged populace. These data highlight potential barriers to 7 key digital engagement behaviors that could be targeted for intervention.