Ciencia, Genética, y ¿Desinformación?: A content analysis of genetic testing coverage from US Spanish-language news media.

Genetic testing (GT) has become ubiquitous in the United States, either in clinical or direct-to-consumer markets. White and English-speaking populations have primarily benefited from this new technology, leaving other groups, like Hispanic populations, behind. Explanations for this disparity has cited a lack of awareness and knowledge of genetic testing purposes. Science communication from English-language media play an important role in setting initial attitudes and influencing decision-making for audiences. However, Spanish-language media have virtually no research published on documented potential effects for GT utilization despite the continued growth of Hispanic Spanish-speaking groups in the United States. Thus, this study characterized coverage of GT from two of the most prominent US Spanish-language media outlets, Telemundo and Univision. Over a 12-year time period, we identified 235 written articles of GT, mainly focusing on forensics applications, followed by gossip and health. There were 292 sources referenced across all 235 articles drawing from governmental agencies or officials, other news agencies, and medical institutions or officials. The findings suggest that coverage of GT among Spanish-language news outlets is limited. When Spanish-language news outlets do cover GT, they focus on aspects of intrigue or entertainment more than demystifying and explaining GT. Stories tend to cite other published articles, with author attribution often missing, leading to questions of comfort of Spanish-media to cover these topics. Further, the publishing process may lead to confusion of the purpose of genetic testing for health purposes and may bias Spanish-speaking groups towards genetic testing for health purposes. Thus, reconciliation and education initiatives around genetic testing purposes are needed for Spanish-speaking communities from not only media, but also genetics providers and institutions.

Spit, Disgust, and Parasite Stress Theory: A Message Experiment.

Public health interventions targeting coughing and spitting during the Tuberculosis and 1918 flu epidemics were largely successful. Specifically, public health officials' messaging framed the behavior of spitting as repulsive and endangering to others, prompting an elicitation of disgust. Anti-spitting campaigns - messaging that focuses on the threat of spit or sputum - have long been common during pandemics and manifested once again to combat the spread of COVID-19. Yet, few scholars have theorized if and how anti-spitting campaigns function to change behavior. One possibility is parasite stress theory, which posits that human behavior is driven by a desire to avoid pathogenic threats like spit. The application of these types of disgust appeals in public health messaging remains understudied and warrants exploration. To test the applicability of the parasite stress theory, our message experiment with US adults (N = 488) examined reactions to anti-spit messages that varied in visual disgust (low and high). For more highly educated respondents, the high disgust appeal directly decreased spitting intentions, and this relationship was stronger for individuals with higher levels of pathogen and moral disgust. Given the importance of public messaging during pandemics, future research should continue to examine the efficacy and theoretical underpinnings of specific disgust appeals.

Barriers to family history collection among Spanish-speaking primary care patients: a BRIDGE qualitative study.

Objectives: Family history is an important tool for assessing disease risk, and tailoring recommendations for screening and genetic services referral. This study explored barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in two US healthcare systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical assistants, physicians, and interpreters with experience collecting family history for Spanish-speaking patients. Results: The most common patient-level barrier was the perception that some Spanish-speaking patients had limited knowledge of family history. Interpersonal communication barriers related to dialectical differences and decisions about using formal interpreters vs. Spanish-speaking staff. Organizational barriers included time pressures related to using interpreters, and ad hoc workflow adaptations for Spanish-speaking patients that might leave gaps in family history collection. Conclusions: This study identified multi-level barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients in primary care. Findings suggest that a key priority to enhance communication would be to standardize processes for working with interpreters. Innovation: To improve communication with and care provided to Spanish-speaking patients, there is a need to increase healthcare provider awareness about implicit bias, to address ad hoc workflow adjustments within practice settings, to evaluate the need for professional interpreter services, and to improve digital tools to facilitate family history collection.