Listening Sessions to Shape the Innovative NIH ComPASS Common Fund Program to Advance Health Equity.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recognized the need for a research program to address the underlying structural factors that impact health. To inform the development of the NIH Common Fund Community Partnerships to Advance Science for Society (ComPASS) Program, NIH obtained input through community listening sessions. Through its design, ComPASS recognizes the essential role of community organizations as the lead in addressing persistent structural and social challenges to accelerate progress toward advancing health equity. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(7):685-689. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307656).

Challenges and Opportunities for Paving the Road to Global Health Equity Through Implementation Science.

Implementation science focuses on enhancing the widespread uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine practice to improve population health. However, optimizing implementation science to promote health equity in domestic and global resource-limited settings requires considering historical and sociopolitical processes (e.g., colonization, structural racism) and centering in local sociocultural and indigenous cultures and values. This review weaves together principles of decolonization and antiracism to inform critical and reflexive perspectives on partnerships that incorporate a focus on implementation science, with the goal of making progress toward global health equity. From an implementation science perspective, wesynthesize examples of public health evidence-based interventions, strategies, and outcomes applied in global settings that are promising for health equity, alongside a critical examination of partnerships, context, and frameworks operationalized in these studies. We conclude with key future directions to optimize the application of implementation science with a justice orientation to promote global health equity.

The Association of Context with Reported Self-Efficacy for Cancer-Preventive Behaviors and Perceived Cancer Risk in U.S. Adults from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) Study.

Background: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. It is critical to understand the associations among multilevel determinants of cancer prevention and control behaviors. This study examined associations of neighborhood factors with perceived risk of cancer and self-efficacy for reducing cancer risk. Methods: Cross-sectional analyses included 2324 U.S. adults from the Midlife in the U.S. Wave 3. Participants completed surveys of neighborhood environment (perceived neighborhood trust and safety, built environment conditions, social integration), perceived cancer risk and cancer prevention efficacy. Multivariate linear regressions examined associations of neighborhood context with risk perceptions and self-efficacy. Results: In the model that adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, better perceived neighborhood trust and safety were associated with lower perceived cancer risk. In fully adjusted models for sociodemographic characteristics and contextual factors, higher perceptions of neighborhood trust and safety were associated with higher cancer prevention self-efficacy. Perceptions of better built neighborhood conditions and higher social integration were significantly associated with lower perceived cancer risk and higher perceived cancer prevention efficacy. Conclusions: Perceptions of neighborhood context may play a role in shaping psychosocial factors such as perceived cancer risk and self-efficacy, even after controlling for robust predictors of these perceptions.

Integrating a focus on health equity in implementation science: Case examples from the national cancer institute's implementation science in cancer control centers (ISC3) network.

Background: A Health Equity Task Force (HETF) of members from seven Centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) network sought to identify case examples of how Centers were applying a focus on health equity in implementation science to inform future research and capacity-building efforts. Methods: HETF members at each ISC3 collected information on how health equity was conceptualized, operationalized, and addressed in initial research and capacity-building efforts across the seven ISC3 Centers funded in 2019-2020. Each Center completed a questionnaire assessing five health equity domains central to implementation science (e.g., community engagement; implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs); and engaging underrepresented scholars). Data generated illustrative examples from these five domains. Results: Centers reported a range of approaches focusing on health equity in implementation research and capacity-building efforts, including (1) engaging diverse community partners/settings in making decisions about research priorities and projects; (2) applying health equity within a single TMF applied across projects or various TMFs used in specific projects; (3) evaluating health equity in operationalizing and measuring health and implementation outcomes; (4) building capacity for health equity-focused implementation science among trainees, early career scholars, and partnering organizations; and (5) leveraging varying levels of institutional resources and efforts to engage, include, and support underrepresented scholars. Conclusions: Examples of approaches to integrating health equity across the ISC3 network can inform other investigators and centers' efforts to build capacity and infrastructure to support growth and expansion of health equity-focused implementation science.

Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review.

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

Exploring correlates of support for restricting breast cancer awareness marketing on alcohol containers among women.

BACKGROUND: Although alcohol consumption increases breast cancer risk, some alcohol products include breast cancer awareness marketing (i.e., pink ribbons) on alcohol containers, which poses a contradiction. Some researchers and advocacy groups have called for restrictions on use of the pink ribbon and other breast cancer awareness marketing on alcohol products. This exploratory study aimed to describe individual and behavioral correlates (age, knowledge, attitudes, purchase intention) of reported support for potential policy restrictions of pink ribbon labeling on alcohol containers. METHODS: The study sample was drawn from the Prolific crowd-sourced research platform in September 2020. Eligible participants included U.S. women aged 21+ years. The primary outcome was policy position for restrictions on pink ribbon labeling on alcohol containers, coded as support, neutral, or oppose. The association between pink ribbon labeling attitudes and support or opposition (vs neutral) was examined using multinomial logistic regression. Covariates were 1) knowledge of the alcohol-cancer link; 2) likelihood of buying an alcohol product with pink ribbon labeling; and 3) age. Models were used to calculate adjusted predicted probabilities for support, oppose, and neutral. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 511 women. Overall, 46% of women opposed, 34% were neutral, and 20% supported restricting pink ribbon labeling on alcohol containers. Controlling for all covariates, women who reported that wine increases cancer risk had the highest probability of opposing restrictions on pink ribbon labeling (56.4% [95%CI: 48.1%-64.8%]). Women who reported wine had no effect on cancer risk had the highest probability of being neutral about restrictions on pink ribbon labeling (45.5% [95% CI: 35.7%-55.3%]). Across levels of knowledge about the alcohol-cancer risk association, as favorable attitudes toward pink ribbon labeling increased, the probability of policy opposition increased and the probability of being policy neutral decreased. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study suggest women's favorable attitudes toward pink ribbon labeling on alcohol containers are a stronger predictor of support or opposition for restrictions on pink ribbon labeling than knowledge of the alcohol-cancer link. Future research could examine whether pink ribbon labeling may interact with potential or current health warnings on alcohol containers.

Understanding Associations of Personal Values With Support for Tobacco and Alcohol Control Policies.

INTRODUCTION: This cross-sectional analysis of the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (N=3,604) examines the associations of personal values with tobacco and alcohol control policy support, which may inform policy-related communication efforts. METHODS: Respondents selected which of 7 value options they considered most important in their daily life and rated their support for 8 proposed tobacco and alcohol control policies (1=strongly oppose, 5=strongly support). Weighted proportions for each value were described across sociodemographic characteristics, smoking status, and alcohol use. Weighted bivariate and multivariable regressions tested the associations of values with mean policy support (alpha=0.89). Analyses occurred from 2021 to 2022. RESULTS: The most frequently selected values were assuring my family is safe and secure (30.2%), being happy (21.1%), and making my own decisions (13.6%). Selected values varied across sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics. For example, people with lower education and incomes were overrepresented among those selecting making my own decisions and keeping myself in good health. After adjusting for sociodemographics, smoking, and alcohol use, people selecting family safety (ß=0.20, 95% CI=0.06, 0.33) or religious connection (ß=0.34, 95% CI=0.14, 0.54) as most important reported higher policy support than those selecting making their own decisions, the value associated with the lowest mean policy support. Mean policy support did not significantly differ across any other value comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Personal values are associated with support for alcohol and tobacco control policies, with making my own decisions associated with the lowest policy support. Future research and communication efforts may consider aligning tobacco and alcohol control policies with the idea of supporting autonomy.

Speeding implementation in cancer: The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control.

The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network represents a large-scale initiative to create an infrastructure to support and enable the efficient, effective, and equitable translation of approaches and evidence-based treatments to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. This Cancer MoonshotSM-funded ISC3 Network consists of 7 P50 Centers that support and advance the rapid development, testing, and refinement of innovative approaches to implement a range of evidence-based cancer control interventions. The Centers were designed to have research-practice partnerships at their core and to create the opportunity for a series of pilot studies that could explore new and sometimes risky ideas and embed in their infrastructure a 2-way engagement and collaboration essential to stimulating lasting change. ISC3 also seeks to enhance capacity of researchers, practitioners, and communities to apply implementation science approaches, methods, and measures. The Organizing Framework that guides the work of ISC3 highlights a collective set of 3 core areas of collaboration within and among Centers, including to 1) assess and incorporate dynamic, multilevel context; 2) develop and conduct rapid and responsive pilot and methods studies; and 3) build capacity for knowledge development and exchange. Core operating principles that undergird the Framework include open collaboration, consideration of the dynamic context, and engagement of multiple implementation partners to advance pragmatic methods and health equity and facilitate leadership and capacity building across implementation science and cancer control.

Opportunities to advance implementation science and nutrition research: a commentary on the Strategic Plan for NIH Nutrition Research.

Despite population-wide recommendations by the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans and others to encourage health-promoting dietary patterns, the proportion of Americans following dietary recommendations remains low. The gaps in the adoption and integration of evidence-based dietary interventions, practices, programs, and policies (EBIs) into community and clinical settings signal the need to strengthen efforts in implementation science (IS) in nutrition research to understand and alleviate barriers to adopting and sustaining healthy dietary behaviors and practices. Equally important is the translation of this research into practice in a variety of settings and across the diversity of populations. Recognizing this need, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2020-2030 Strategic Plan for NIH Nutrition Research calls for the expansion of IS as a key opportunity to advancing nutrition research. This commentary highlights three scientific opportunities to stimulate IS in nutrition research and provides examples for each opportunity. These include: (a) Advance consideration of implementation and dissemination early in the design of interventions to facilitate opportunities for equitable scale-up and sustainability of EBIs, (b) Develop and test strategies for equitable implementation of nutrition and diet EBIs in health care and community settings, and (c) Build and strengthen the infrastructure, capacity, and expertise needed to increase use of IS in clinical and community nutrition research to swiftly move the research into practice. By advancing the three opportunities identified in this commentary, the scientific community has the potential to advance the field of nutrition research and IS with the ultimate goal of improving public health.

While dietary guidelines have proven effective in clinical studies, most Americans do not follow these tested guidelines. More work is needed to bring research into practice so that all populations can benefit from the research. The U.S. National Institutes of Health recognizes this need and highlights it as a key opportunity in its 2020­2030 Strategic Plan for NIH Nutrition Research. This commentary describes three scientific opportunities that can help to stimulate the research needed to move research into practice, toward the ultimate goal of improving public health.

Advancing multi-level health communication research: A Delphi study on barriers and opportunities.

Adopting a multi-level perspective that considers the many interrelated contexts influencing health could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. However, despite increasing interest in the use of multi-level approaches, multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions are infrequently utilized. We therefore sought to conduct a modified Delphi study to better understand how researchers conceptualize MLHC interventions and identify opportunities for advancing MLHC work. Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about the characteristics, benefits, pitfalls, best practices, barriers, and facilitators of MLHC interventions; the role of technology in facilitating MLHC interventions; and ways to advance MLHC intervention research (46 experts completed the first survey, 44 completed both surveys). Survey data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Panelists reached consensus on two components of the proposed definition of MLHC interventions and also put forward a set of best practices for these interventions. Panelists felt that most health intervention research could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offered certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized the potential for technology to exacerbate disparities. Finally, panelists prioritized a set of methodological advances and practical supports that would be needed to facilitate future MLHC intervention research. The results of this study point to several future directions for the field, including advancing how interactions between levels are assessed, increasing the empirical evidence base demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identifying best practices for the use of technology. The findings also suggest that researchers may need additional support to overcome the perceived practical challenges of conducting MLHC interventions.

BACKGROUND: Considering the factors that affect health across multiple levels (e.g., individual, family, community, and policy) could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. The goal of this study was to better understand how researchers characterize multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions and to identify opportunities for advancing work in this area. METHODS: Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about MLHC interventions. RESULTS: Panelists reported that most health communication interventions could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offer certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized that the use of technology could have unintended consequences. Using input from the panel of experts recruited for the study, we propose a working definition of MLHC interventions and a set of best practices for conducting these types of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the need to improve methods, conduct additional research demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identify how technology can best be used to support these interventions.

National Cancer Institute-Funded Social Risk Research in Cancer Care Delivery: Opportunities for Future Research.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients and survivors with food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers face challenges in access and utilization of quality cancer care thereby adversely impacting their health outcomes. This portfolio analysis synthesized and described National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported social risk research focused on assessing food insecurity, housing instability, and transportation-related barriers among individuals diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a query using the National Institutes of Health iSearch tool to identify NCI-awarded extramural research and training grants (2010-2022). Grant abstracts, specific aims, and research strategies were coded for research characteristics, study population, and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 30 grants included in this analysis, most assessed transportation-related barriers as patient-level social needs. Grants focused on community-level social risks, food insecurity, and housing instability were largely absent. Most grants included activities that identified the presence of social risks and/or needs (n = 24), connected patients to social care resources (n = 10), and engaged community members or organizations to inform the research study (n = 9). Of the grants, 18 focused on a single type of cancer, primarily breast cancer, and more than half focused on the treatment and survivorship phases. CONCLUSIONS: In the last decade, there has been limited NCI-funded social risk research grants focused on food insecurity and housing instability. Findings highlight opportunities for future cancer care delivery research, including community and health system-level approaches that integrate social and clinical care to address social risks and social needs. Such efforts can help improve outcomes of populations that experience cancer health and health-care disparities.

Social determinants of health and cancer screening implementation and outcomes in the USA: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Improving the delivery, uptake, and implementation of cancer screening to meet evidence-based recommendations is needed to reduce persistent cancer health disparities in the USA. Current national public health targets emphasize the role of social determinants of health (SDOH) on cancer screening. However, there remains a need to explicate these linkages, toward the goal of identifying and implementing effective interventions that target and address SDOH to reduce inequities in cancer screening. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of English language peer-reviewed original research articles published between 2010 and 2021 that describe observational (qualitative and quantitative) and intervention studies conducted in the USA. In alignment with Healthy People 2030, we will include studies of breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer screening. Guided by multiple SDOH frameworks, we will broadly define SDOH by five domain areas: economic stability, education access and quality, healthcare access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context. Following systematic literature searches in five databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) and piloting of screening procedures, reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts for potential relevance. Reviewer pairs will then screen full text articles for eligibility criteria. We will extract data items from included articles, including study characteristics, cancer screening intervention information, and coding of SDOH constructs. We will assess study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and synthesize our findings using narrative, descriptive statistics, tables, and figures. Our approach will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations. DISCUSSION: By completing this systematic review, we will summarize recent literature on SDOH and cancer screening, identify research gaps for inclusion of SDOH, and propose future opportunities for advancing equity in cancer screening by integrating SDOH as part of the implementation context to promote uptake, sustainability, and scale-up in the implementation of screening guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021276582 .

Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute's Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on 'health equity and context' to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions. DISCUSSION: In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity. To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.

Collaboration networks of the implementation science centers for cancer control: a social network analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multi-center research initiatives offer opportunities to develop and strengthen connections among researchers. These initiatives often have goals of increased scientific collaboration which can be examined using social network analysis. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative conducted an online social network survey in its first year of funding (2020) to (1) establish baseline network measures including the extent of cross-center collaboration and (2) assess factors associated with a network member's access to the network such as one's implementation science (IS) expertise. Members of the seven funded centers and NCI program staff identified collaborations in planning/conducting research, capacity building, product development, scientific dissemination, and practice/policy dissemination. RESULTS: Of the 192 invitees, 182 network members completed the survey (95%). The most prevalent roles were faculty (60%) and research staff (24%). Almost one-quarter (23%) of members reported advanced expertise in IS, 42% intermediate, and 35% beginner. Most members were female (69%) and white (79%). One-third (33%) of collaboration ties were among members from different centers. Across all collaboration activities, the network had a density of 14%, suggesting moderate cohesion. Degree centralization (0.33) and betweenness centralization (0.07) measures suggest a fairly dispersed network (no single or few central member(s) holding all connections). The most prevalent and densely connected collaboration was in planning/conducting research (1470 ties; 8% density). Practice/policy dissemination had the fewest collaboration, lowest density (284 ties' 3% density), and the largest number of non-connected members (n=43). Access to the ISC3 network varied significantly depending on members' level of IS expertise, role within the network, and racial/ethnic background. Across all collaboration activities, most connected members included those with advanced IS expertise, faculty and NCI staff, and Hispanic or Latino and white members. CONCLUSIONS: Results establish a baseline for assessing the growth of cross-center collaborations, highlighting specific areas in need of particular growth in network collaborations such as increasing engagement of racial and ethnic minorities and trainees or those with less expertise in IS.

Understanding the Impact of Move Your Way Campaign Exposure on Key Physical Activity Outcomes - Results from a Multi-site Pilot Evaluation.

The Move Your Way® campaign was developed to encourage physical activity contemplators to get active. A pilot test of campaign implementation was conducted and evaluated in eight communities between March and October 2020. A web-based, cross-sectional survey of adults collected pilot campaign outcome data after campaign implementation. Differences in outcomes between exposed and unexposed groups across the communities were compared. A total of n = 5,140 responded to the survey. Across eight communities, those who reported campaign exposure had 7.2 (95% CI, 6.1-8.6) greater odds of being aware of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) compared to unexposed respondents. Additionally, they had greater odds of identifying the correct aerobic and muscle-strengthening dosages and had 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.6) greater odds of reporting meeting both the aerobic and muscle-strengthening Guidelines. In this pilot evaluation, reported exposure to Move Your Way is associated with higher odds of being aware of the Guidelines, knowing recommended dosages, likelihood of becoming more active in the future, higher physical activity self-efficacy, making a recent physical activity behavior change, and higher physical activity levels. The Move Your Way campaign can be used in communities to promote physical activity.

Willingness to Share Data From Wearable Health and Activity Trackers: Analysis of the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Sharing data from wearable health and activity trackers (wearables) with others may improve the health and behavioral outcomes of wearable users by generating social support and improving their ability to manage their health. Investigating individual factors that influence US adults' willingness to share wearable data with different types of individuals may provide insights about the population subgroups that are most or least likely to benefit from wearable interventions. Specifically, it is necessary to identify digital health behaviors potentially associated with willingness to share wearable data given that the use of and engagement with various technologies may broadly influence web-based health information-sharing behaviors. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify sociodemographic, health, and digital health behavior correlates of US adults' willingness to share wearable data with health care providers and family or friends. METHODS: Data for the analytic sample (N=1300) were obtained from the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey of the National Cancer Institute. Digital health behavior measures included frequency of wearable device use, use of smartphones or tablets to help communicate with providers, use of social networking sites to share health information, and participation in a web-based health community. Multivariable logistic regression analysis of weighted data examined the associations between digital health behaviors and willingness to share wearable device data, controlling for sociodemographics and health-related characteristics. RESULTS: Most US adults reported willingness to share wearable data with providers (81.86%) and with family or friends (69.51%). Those who reported higher health self-efficacy (odds ratio [OR] 1.97, 95% CI 1.11-3.51), higher level of trust in providers as a source of health information (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.12-3.49), and higher level of physical activity (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.21-3.31) had greater odds of willingness to share data with providers. In addition, those with a higher frequency of wearable use (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.35-3.43) and those who reported use of smartphones or tablets to help communicate with providers (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.09-3.63) had greater odds of willingness to share data with providers. Only higher level of physical activity was associated with greater odds of willingness to share wearable data with family or friends (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.84). Sociodemographic factors were not significantly associated with willingness to share wearable data. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that, among US adult wearable users, behavior-related factors, rather than sociodemographic characteristics, are key drivers of willingness to share health information obtained from wearables with others. Moreover, behavioral correlates of willingness to share wearable data are unique to the type of recipient (ie, providers vs family or friends). Future studies could use these findings to inform the development of interventions that aim to improve the use of patient-generated data from wearable devices in health care settings.

Effects of Buffer Size and Shape on the Association of Neighborhood SES and Adult Fruit and Vegetable Consumption.

Introduction: Neighborhood environment factors are relevant for dietary behaviors, but associations between home neighborhood context and disease prevention behaviors vary depending on the definition of neighborhood. The present study uses a publicly available dataset to examine whether associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status (NSES) and fruit/vegetable (FV) consumption vary when NSES is defined by different neighborhood sizes and shapes. Methods: We analyzed data from 1,736 adults with data in GeoFLASHE, a geospatial extension of the National Cancer Institute's Family Life, Activity, Sun, Health, and Eating Study (FLASHE). We examined correlations of NSES values across neighborhood buffer shapes (circular or street network) and sizes (ranging from 400 to 1,200 m) and ran weighted simple and multivariable regressions modeling frequency of FV consumption by NSES for each neighborhood definition. Regressions were also stratified by gender. Results: NSES measures were highly correlated across various neighborhood buffer definitions. In models adjusted for socio-demographics, circular buffers of all sizes and street buffers 750 m and larger were significantly associated with FV consumption frequency for women only. Conclusion: NSES may be particularly relevant for women's FV consumption, and further research can examine whether these associations are explained by access to food stores, food shopping behavior, and/or psychosocial variables. Although different NSES buffers are highly correlated, researchers should conceptually determine spatial areas a priori.

U.S. adults noticing and using menu calorie information: Analysis of the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey Data.

FDA's Menu Labeling Final Rule requires covered establishments provide calorie information on menus or menu boards, among other requirements. This study describes correlates of noticing and using menu calorie information in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults before implementation of the Final Rule in May 2018. Data from the 2018 National Cancer Institute Health Information National Trends Survey was used to assess noticing menu calorie information, using menu calorie information to change menu ordering behavior, and knowledge of daily calorie needs. Regression analysis of weighted data tested associations between individual characteristics and noticing and using menu calorie information. Nearly half of adults (44%) reported noticing menu calorie information. Women, younger individuals, those who seek health information, individuals with a BMI ≥ 30, and those with higher education or higher income were more likely to report noticing menu calorie information. Among adults who reported noticing menu calorie information, three-quarters responded by ordering less (e.g., fewer calories), which equates to about one-third of the population. About 36% of women and 42% of men lacked calorie knowledge. Men with, versus without, calorie knowledge were twice as likely to report noticing menu calorie information (adjusted OR 2.23 95% CI 1.51, 3.29). Findings suggest behavioral response to menu calorie information varies and most individuals who notice the information respond by ordering less in ways that could reduce caloric intake. Future analyses could compare noticing and using menu calorie information before and after menu labeling implementation to assess the effect of policy on population behaviors.

Responses to the Physical Activity Guidelines and Dissemination Strategies for Behavior Change in a Representative Sample of US Adults.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) is needed, but how individuals respond to the Guidelines is not well understood. This surveillance study describes US adults' reported responses to and information sources for hearing about the Guidelines and explores relationships between how respondents heard about the Guidelines and their reported response(s). METHODS: Data were analyzed from the population-based 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 3. Population-weighted proportions of response were calculated. Among those who had heard about the Guidelines, binary logistic regressions examined associations between the reported response(s) and the information source and number of sources reported. RESULTS: The analytical sample included 5047 adults. Nearly 65% of US adults reported hearing about the Guidelines, and 29% reported a behavioral response (eg, increased physical activity). Hearing about the Guidelines through health professionals (adjusted odds ratio = 2.30, 95% confidence interval, 1.45-3.65) or social media (adjusted odds ratio = 1.89, 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.96) (vs other sources) was associated with reporting increasing physical activity. Hearing from multiple sources (vs one source) was associated with reporting increasing physical activity (adjusted odds ratio = 1.97, 95% confidence interval, 1.18-3.31). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest dissemination of the Guidelines across multiple channels may promote greater changes in physical activity.