Predictors of willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 vaccine distribution efforts continue, public health workers can strategize about vaccine promotion in an effort to increase willingness among those who may be hesitant. METHODS: In April 2020, we surveyed a national probability sample of 2279 U.S. adults using an online panel recruited through address-based sampling. Households received a computer and internet access if needed to participate in the panel. Participants were invited via e-mail and answered online survey questions about their willingness to get a novel coronavirus vaccine when one became available. The survey was completed in English and Spanish. We report weighted percentages. RESULTS: Most respondents were willing to get the vaccine for themselves (75%) or their children (73%). Notably, Black respondents were less willing than White respondents (47% vs. 79%, p < 0.001), while Hispanic respondents were more willing than White respondents (80% vs. 75%, p < 0.003). Females were less likely than makes (72% vs. 79%, p < 0.001). Those without insurance were less willing than the insured (47% vs. 78%, p < 0.001). Willingness to vaccinate was higher for those age 65 and older than for some younger age groups (85% for those 65 and older vs. 75% for those 50-64, p < 0.017; 72% for those 35-49, p < 0.002; 70% for those 25-34, p = NS and 75% for ages 18-24, p = NS), but other groups at increased risk because of underlying medical conditions or morbid obesity were not more willing to get vaccinated than their lower risk counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Most Americans were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, but several vulnerable populations reported low willingness. Public health efforts should address these gaps as national implementation efforts continue.

Mental Models of Infectious Diseases and Public Understanding of COVID-19 Prevention.

The emergence of viral diseases such as Ebola virus disease, Zika virus disease, and the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has posed considerable challenges to health care systems around the world. Public health strategy to address emerging infectious diseases has depended in part on human behavior change and yet the perceptions and knowledge motivating that behavior have been at times inconsistent with the latest consensus of peer-reviewed science. Part of that disjuncture likely involves the existence and persistence of past ideas about other diseases. To forecast and prepare for future epidemic and pandemic response, we need to better understand how people approach emerging infectious diseases as objects of public opinion during the periods when such diseases first become salient at a population level. In this essay, we explore two examples of how existing mental models of past infectious diseases appear to have conditioned and constrained public response to novel viral diseases. We review previously reported experiences related to Zika virus in Central America and discuss public opinion data collected in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the case of Zika virus disease, we assess how thinking about earlier mosquito-borne disease seems to have affected public consideration of the virus in Guatemala. In the case of COVID-19, we assess how previous vaccination behavior for a different disease is associated with intention to obtain vaccination for COVID-19 in the future.

Impact of messages about scientific uncertainty on risk perceptions and intentions to use electronic vaping products.

BACKGROUND: The science surrounding e-cigarettes and other electronic vaping products (EVPs) is rapidly evolving, and the health effects of vaping are unclear. Little research has explored how individuals respond to information acknowledging scientific uncertainty. The aim of the present study was to understand the impact of messages about scientific uncertainty regarding the health effects of vaping on risk perceptions and behavioral intentions. METHODS: Adults in an online experiment (n = 2508) were randomly exposed to view either a control message (a short factual statement about EVPs) or an uncertainty message (the control message plus additional information describing why EVP-related research is limited or inconclusive). Participants rated the risks of vaping and their intentions to try or stop vaping. RESULTS: Individuals who viewed the uncertainty message rated vaping as less risky than those who viewed the control message. Message exposure did not impact intentions to try vaping soon or intentions to stop vaping in the next 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging scientific uncertainty made EVP use seem less risky. Future research should explore possible drivers of this response, such as deeper message processing or emotional reactions. Researchers and practitioners designing public health campaigns about vaping might consider a cautious approach to presenting information about scientific uncertainty.

Making Decisions About Medication Use During Pregnancy: Implications for Communication Strategies.

Objective To explore women's perceptions of the risks and benefits associated with medication use during pregnancy and to better understand how women make decisions related to medication use in pregnancy. Methods We conducted online focus groups with 48 women who used medication during pregnancy or while planning a pregnancy, and 12 in-depth follow-up interviews with a subset of these women. Results We found that women were aware of general risks associated with medication use but were often unable to articulate specific negative outcomes. Women were concerned most about medications' impact on fetal development but were also concerned about how either continuing or discontinuing medication during pregnancy could affect their own health. Women indicated that if the risk of a given medication were unknown, they would not take that medication during pregnancy. Conclusion This formative research found that women face difficult decisions about medication use during pregnancy and need specific information to help them make decisions. Enhanced communication between patients and their providers regarding medication use would help address this need. We suggest that public health practitioners develop messages to (1) encourage, remind, and prompt women to proactively talk with their healthcare providers about the risks of taking, not taking, stopping, or altering the dosage of a medication while trying to become pregnant and/or while pregnant; and (2) encourage all women of childbearing age to ask their healthcare providers about medication use.

Quantitative Information on Oncology Prescription Drug Websites.

Our objective was to determine whether and how quantitative information about drug benefits and risks is presented to consumers and healthcare professionals on cancer-related prescription drug websites. We analyzed the content of 65 active cancer-related prescription drug websites. We assessed the inclusion and presentation of quantitative information for two audiences (consumers and healthcare professionals) and two types of information (drug benefits and risks). Websites were equally likely to present quantitative information for benefits (96.9 %) and risks (95.4 %). However, the amount of the information differed significantly: Both consumer-directed and healthcare-professional-directed webpages were more likely to have quantitative information for every benefit (consumer 38.5 %; healthcare professional 86.1 %) compared with every risk (consumer 3.1 %; healthcare professional 6.2 %). The numeric and graphic presentations also differed by audience and information type. Consumers have access to quantitative information about oncology drugs and, in particular, about the benefits of these drugs. Research has shown that using quantitative information to communicate treatment benefits and risks can increase patients' and physicians' understanding and can aid in treatment decision-making, although some numeric and graphic formats are more useful than others.

Improving Safe Use of Medications During Pregnancy: The Roles of Patients, Physicians, and Pharmacists.

Our study sought to explore the actual and potential roles of patients, physicians, and pharmacists, as well as their shared challenges and opportunities, in improving the safety of medication use during pregnancy. We conducted virtual focus groups with 48 women and in-depth interviews with nine physicians and five pharmacists. Qualitative analysis revealed that all three groups of participants reported "playing it safe," the need for an engaged patient making informed decisions, challenges surrounding communication about pregnancy status, and a lack of patient-centric resources. Patients, physicians, and pharmacists are highly motivated to protect developing babies from potential harms of medication use during pregnancy while maintaining the patient's health. Strategic messaging could maximize the effectiveness of these interactions by helping physicians discuss the benefits and risks of medication use during pregnancy, pharmacists screen for pregnancy and counsel on medication safety, and patients using medications to share pregnancy intentions with their providers pre-pregnancy.

Direct-to-Consumer Promotion of Prescription Drugs on Mobile Devices: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations state that any prescription drug promotion that presents drug benefits to consumers must also disclose certain information about the drug's risks in a similar manner. Nearly three-quarters of all US mobile phone subscribers use a smartphone, and over half report receiving mobile advertisements on their device. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this project was to investigate how prescription drugs are being promoted to consumers using mobile technologies. We were particularly interested in the presentation of drug benefits and risks, with regard to presence, placement, and prominence. METHODS: We analyzed a sample of 51 mobile promotional communications and their associated linked landing pages. We assessed the content and format of the mobile communications and landing pages with regard to presentation of drug benefits and risks. RESULTS: Of the 51 mobile communications we coded, 41% (21/51) were product claim communications (includes the drug name, benefits, and risks), 22% (11/51) were reminder communications (includes drug name only), and 37% (19/51) were help-seeking communications (includes information about the medical condition but not the drug name). Some of the product claim communications (5/21, 24%) required scrolling to see all the benefit information; in contrast, 95% (20/21) required scrolling to see all the risk information. Of the 19 product claim communications that presented both benefits and risks, 95% (18/19) presented benefits before risks and 47% (9/19) used a bigger font for benefits than for risks. Most mobile communications (35/51, 69%) linked to branded drug websites with both benefits and risks, 25% (13/51) linked to a landing page with benefits but no visible risks, and 6% (3/51) linked to a landing page with risks but no visible benefits. Few landing pages (4/51, 8%) required scrolling to see all the benefit information; in contrast, 51% (26/51) required scrolling to see all the risk information. Of the 35 landing pages with both benefit and risk information, 71% (25/35) presented benefits before risks and 51% (18/35) used a bigger font for benefits than for risks. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that, while risks and benefits are both represented in mobile communications and their associated landing pages, they are not equally prominent and accessible. This has implications for compliance with FDA fair balance regulations.

Changes in U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations: effect on mammography screening in Olmsted County, MN 2004-2013.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed changes in adherence to screening mammography recommendations with the introduction of the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations in 2009. METHODS: Using the Rochester Epidemiology Project data linkage system, we examined mammography screening from 2004 to 2013 in 31,377 women 40years of age and older residing in Olmsted County, MN before and after the 2009 change in recommendations. Chi-square was used to compare screening rates before and after changes in recommendations overall, by age group, and by baseline adherence. RESULTS: Among women 40 years and older, declines in screening were observed: 69% of the population was adherent in 2004-2005, 61% in 2006-2009 and 53% in 2010-2013. Absolute decreases in screening were observed from pre- to post-change for those ages 40-49 (4%), 50-74 (9%), and those 75+ (19%, all p<0.0001). Relative declines in screening rates were observed among women aged 70-74 years who were non-adherent at baseline and among women who were adherent at baseline, overall, and in each age group (all p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Declines in screening, both absolute and relative, were most pronounced among women who were adherent at baseline. Research is needed to assess factors that influence screening in the context of evolving recommendations.

Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice.

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice.

Prostate-specific antigen testing: men's responses to 2012 recommendation against screening.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released a draft recommendation advising against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in October 2011, a major shift from previous years of recommending neither for or against PSA testing due to insufficient evidence. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess men's awareness of the new recommendation, and their responses to it. METHODS: This study comprised a web survey of men aged 40-74 years that was conducted through GfK Custom Research, LLC's Knowledge Panel® from November 22 to December 2, 2011. Chi-square tests and logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with disagreement with and intention to follow the recommendation. Data were analyzed in March 2012. RESULTS: The survey sample included 1089 men without a history of prostate cancer. After reviewing the recommendation, 62% agreed with the recommendation. Age and worry about getting prostate cancer were significantly related to disagreement with the recommendation. Only 13% of respondents were intenders (they planned to follow the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation and not get a prostate-specific antigen test in the future); 54% were non-intenders (they planned to not follow the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation and get a prostate-specific antigen test in the future; and 33% were undecided. Black race, higher income, having a PSA test in the past 2 years, and being somewhat/very worried about getting prostate cancer were all positively associated with being a non-intender. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest that consumers are favorably disposed to PSA testing, despite new evidence suggesting that the harms outweigh the benefits. The new USPSTF recommendation against PSA testing in all men may be met with resistance.

Communicating risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer with an interactive decision support tool.

OBJECTIVE: Women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) face a higher risk of earlier, more aggressive cancer. Because of HBOC's rarity, screening is recommended only for women with strong cancer family histories. However, most patients do not have accurate history available and struggle to understand genetic concepts. METHODS: Cancer in the Family, an online clinical decision support tool, calculated women's HBOC risk and promoted shared patient-provider decisions about screening. A pilot evaluation (n=9 providers, n=48 patients) assessed the tool's impact on knowledge, attitudes, and screening decisions. Patients used the tool before wellness exams and completed three surveys. Providers accessed the tool during exams, completed exam checklists, and completed four surveys. RESULTS: Patients entered complete family histories (67%), calculated personal risk (96%), and shared risk printouts with providers (65%). HBOC knowledge increased dramatically for patients and providers, and many patients (75%) perceived tool results as valid. The tool prompted patient-provider discussions about HBOC risk and cancer family history (88%). CONCLUSIONS: The tool was effective in increasing knowledge, collecting family history, and sparking patient-provider discussions about HBOC screening. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interactive tools can effectively communicate personalized risk and promote shared decisions, but they are not a substitute for patient-provider discussions.

Communicating quantitative risks and benefits in promotional prescription drug labeling or print advertising.

PURPOSE: Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, all promotional materials for prescription drugs must strike a fair balance in presentation of risks and benefits. How to best present this information is not clear. We sought to determine if the presentation of quantitative risk and benefit information in drug advertising and labeling influences consumers', patients', and clinicians' information processing, knowledge, and behavior by assessing available empirical evidence. METHODS: We used PubMed for a literature search, limiting to articles published in English from 1990 forward. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts for inclusion, after which we reviewed the full texts to determine if they communicated risk/benefit information either: (i) numerically (e.g., percent) versus non-numerically (e.g., using text such as "increased risk") or (ii) numerically using different formats (e.g., "25% of patients", "one in four patients", or use of pictographs). We abstracted information from included articles into standardized evidence tables. The research team identified a total of 674 relevant publications, of which 52 met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 37 focused on drugs. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Presenting numeric information appears to improve understanding of risks and benefits relative to non-numeric presentation; presenting both numeric and non-numeric information when possible may be best practice. No single specific format or graphical approach emerged as consistently superior. Numeracy and health literacy also deserve more empirical attention as moderators.

The Health Literacy Skills Instrument: a 10-item short form.

The 25-item Health Literacy Skills Instrument (HLSI) was designed to measure the ability to read and understand text and locate and interpret information in documents (print literacy), to use quantitative information (numeracy), to listen effectively (oral literacy), and to seek information through the Internet (navigation). It is a publically available measure that can be used in surveillance activities, to evaluate interventions, and in research examining the relation between health literacy and health outcomes. The authors developed a 10-item, short form (SF) version of the HLSI, the HLSI-SF, using data gathered for the development of the longer form. The authors selected 10 items for inclusion in the HLSI-SF and conducted a confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory analyses, then computed Cronbach's alpha. The HLSI-SF demonstrated acceptable internal consistency reliability (α = .70) for use in group-level comparisons. The HSLI-SF has many of the same advantages of the longer version with the additional benefit of taking only approximately 5 to 10 min to administer. The HLSI-SF offers researchers and practitioners a valid and reliable measure of health literacy skills.

The public's response to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's 2009 recommendations on mammography screening.

BACKGROUND: On November 16, 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released new breast cancer screening recommendations, resulting in considerable controversy. PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to assess the volume and framing of the public discourse around the mammography recommendations and determine if women were knowledgeable about the new recommendations. METHODS: Two different types of data collection methods were used for this study: (1) a content analysis of news stories and social media posts around the time of the USPSTF announcement and (2) a web-based survey of women aged 40-74 years conducted through Knowledge Networks from December 17, 2009, to January 6, 2010. Data were analyzed in 2010. RESULTS: The survey sample included 1221 women aged 40-74 years who had never had breast cancer. The majority of the articles and posts (51.9%) did not support the screening recommendations, and 17.6% were supportive. Less than one quarter of the sample could identify the new recommendations for women aged 40-49 years and 50-74 years. Results from logistic regression analyses identified characteristics associated with correct knowledge of the recommendations for each age group. Level of attention paid to the recommendations was significantly associated with accurate knowledge of the recommendations for each age group. Having a mammogram within the past 2 years, "other" race (i.e., not black or white), and having higher levels of education, confidence that recommendations were based on the latest research, and attention paid to the new guidelines were all significantly and positively associated with correct knowledge of the new recommendation for women aged 40-49 years. CONCLUSIONS: The new recommendations confused women (30.0%) more than they helped them understand when to get a mammogram (6.2%). Confusion was greatest among women aged 40-49 years and women who had never had a mammogram or who had one more than 2 years ago. Communication about future recommendations should be pretested to identify strategies and language that may reduce confusion among providers, consumers, and advocacy groups.