1
|
Heaton-Shrestha C, Hanson K, Quirke-McFarlane S, Delaney N, Vandrevala T, Bearne L. Exploring how members of the public access and use health research and information: a scoping review. BMC Public Health 2023; 23:2179. [PMID: 37936117 PMCID: PMC10629152 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16918-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2022] [Accepted: 10/06/2023] [Indexed: 11/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Making high-quality health and care information available to members of the general public is crucial to support populations with self-care and improve health outcomes. While attention has been paid to how the public accesses and uses health information generally (including personal records, commercial product information or reviews on healthcare practitioners and organisations) and how practitioners and policy-makers access health research evidence, no overview exists of the way that the public accesses and uses high quality health and care information. PURPOSE This scoping review aimed to map research evidence on how the public accesses and uses a specific type of health information, namely health research and information that does not include personal, product and organisational information. METHODS Electronic database searches [CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Social Sciences Full Text, Web of Science and SCOPUS] for English language studies of any research design published between 2010-2022 on the public's access and use of health research or information (as defined above). Data extraction and analysis was informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute protocol for scoping reviews, and reported in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. RESULTS The search identified 4410 records. Following screening of 234 full text studies, 130 studies were included. One-hundred-and-twenty-nine studies reported on the public's sources of health-research or information; 56 reported the reasons for accessing health research or information and 14 reported on the use of this research and information. The scoping exercise identified a substantial literature on the broader concept of 'health information' but a lack of reporting of the general public's access to and use of health research. It found that 'traditional' sources of information are still relevant alongside newer sources; knowledge of barriers to accessing information focused on personal barriers and on independent searching, while less attention had been paid to barriers to access through other people and settings, people's lived experiences, and the cultural knowledge required. CONCLUSIONS The review identified areas where future primary and secondary research would enhance current understanding of how the public accesses and utilises health research or information, and contribute to emerging areas of research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celayne Heaton-Shrestha
- Kingston University, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston-upon-Thames, KT27LB, UK
| | - Kristin Hanson
- Kingston University, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston-upon-Thames, KT27LB, UK
| | | | - Nancy Delaney
- Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Physiotherapy, London, SE1 7EH, UK
| | - Tushna Vandrevala
- Kingston University, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston-upon-Thames, KT27LB, UK
| | - Lindsay Bearne
- Kingston University, Faculty of Health, Science, Social Care and Education, Kingston-upon-Thames, KT27LB, UK.
- St George's, University of London, Population Health Research Institute, 1st Floor Jenner Wing, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Cooks EJ, Vilaro MJ, Dyal BW, Wang S, Mertens G, Raisa A, Kim B, Campbell-Salome G, Wilkie DJ, Odedina F, Johnson-Mallard V, Yao Y, Krieger JL. What did the pandemic teach us about effective health communication? Unpacking the COVID-19 infodemic. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:2339. [PMID: 36514047 PMCID: PMC9747260 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14707-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The spread of unvetted scientific information about COVID-19 presents a significant challenge to public health, adding to the urgency for increased understanding of COVID-19 information-seeking preferences that will allow for the delivery of evidence-based health communication. This study examined factors associated with COVID-19 information-seeking behavior. METHODS An online survey was conducted with US adults (N = 1800) to identify key interpersonal (e.g., friends, health care providers) and mediated (e.g., TV, social media) sources of COVID-19 information. Logistic regression models were fitted to explore correlates of information-seeking. RESULTS Study findings show that the first sought and most trusted sources of COVID-19 information had different relationships with sociodemographic characteristics, perceived discrimination, and self-efficacy. Older adults had greater odds of seeking information from print materials (e.g., newspapers and magazines) and TV first. Participants with less educational attainment and greater self-efficacy preferred interpersonal sources first, with notably less preference for mass media compared to health care providers. Those with more experiences with discrimination were more likely to seek information from friends, relatives, and co-workers. Additionally, greater self-efficacy was related to increased trust in interpersonal sources. CONCLUSION Study results have implications for tailoring health communication strategies to reach specific subgroups, including those more vulnerable to severe illness from COVID-19. A set of recommendations are provided to assist in campaign development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric J. Cooks
- grid.15276.370000 0004 1936 8091STEM Translational Communication Center, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Weimer Hall 2043, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400 USA
| | - Melissa J. Vilaro
- grid.15276.370000 0004 1936 8091Department of Family, Youth, and Community Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
| | - Brenda W. Dyal
- grid.15276.370000 0004 1936 8091Department of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
| | - Shu Wang
- grid.15276.370000 0004 1936 8091Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
| | - Gillian Mertens
- grid.15276.370000 0004 1936 8091STEM Translational Communication Center, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Weimer Hall 2043, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400 USA
| | - Aantaki Raisa
- grid.15276.370000 0004 1936 8091STEM Translational Communication Center, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Weimer Hall 2043, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400 USA
| | - Bumsoo Kim
- grid.444004.00000 0004 0647 1620Department of Media and Communication, Joongbu University, Geumsan, South Korea
| | - Gemme Campbell-Salome
- grid.280776.c0000 0004 0394 1447Department of Population Health Sciences, Geisinger, Danville, USA
| | - Diana J. Wilkie
- grid.15276.370000 0004 1936 8091Department of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
| | - Folake Odedina
- grid.417467.70000 0004 0443 9942Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, USA
| | | | - Yingwei Yao
- grid.15276.370000 0004 1936 8091Department of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
| | - Janice L. Krieger
- grid.15276.370000 0004 1936 8091STEM Translational Communication Center, College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Weimer Hall 2043, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, FL 32611-8400 USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vasquez TS, Bylund CL, Alpert J, Close J, Le T, Markham MJ, Taylor GB, Paige SR. Comparing Transactional eHealth Literacy of Individuals With Cancer and Surrogate Information Seekers: Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Form Res 2022; 6:e36714. [PMID: 36170007 PMCID: PMC9557759 DOI: 10.2196/36714] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2022] [Revised: 05/24/2022] [Accepted: 08/15/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background
The number of adults entering higher-risk age groups for receiving a cancer diagnosis is rising, with predicted numbers of cancer cases expected to increase by nearly 50% by 2050. Living with cancer puts exceptional burdens on individuals and families during treatment and survivorship, including how they navigate their relationships with one another. One role that a member of a support network may enact is that of a surrogate seeker, who seeks information in an informal capacity on behalf of others. Individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers often use the internet to learn about cancer, but differences in their skills and strategies have received little empirical attention.
Objective
This study aimed to examine the eHealth literacy of individuals with cancer and surrogate information seekers, including an investigation of how each group evaluates the credibility of web-based cancer information. As a secondary aim, we sought to explore the differences that exist between individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers pertaining to eHealth literacies and sociodemographic contexts.
Methods
Between October 2019 and January 2020, we conducted a web-based survey of 282 individuals with cancer (n=185) and surrogate seekers (n=97). We used hierarchical linear regression analyses to explore differences in functional, communicative, critical, and translational eHealth literacy between individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers using the Transactional eHealth Literacy Instrument. Using a convergent, parallel mixed methods design, we also conducted a thematic content analysis of an open-ended survey response to qualitatively examine how each group evaluates web-based cancer information.
Results
eHealth literacy scores did not differ between individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers, even after adjusting for sociodemographic variables. Individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers consider the credibility of web-based cancer information based on its channel (eg, National Institutes of Health). However, in evaluating web-based information, surrogate seekers were more likely than individuals with cancer to consider the presence and quality of scientific references supporting the information. Individuals with cancer were more likely than surrogate seekers to cross-reference other websites and web-based sources to establish consensus.
Conclusions
Web-based cancer information accessibility and evaluation procedures differ among individuals with cancer and surrogate seekers and should be considered in future efforts to design web-based cancer education interventions. Future studies may also benefit from more stratified recruitment approaches and account for additional contextual factors to better understand the unique circumstances experienced within this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Taylor S Vasquez
- College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Carma L Bylund
- College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
- College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Jordan Alpert
- College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Julia Close
- Division of Hematology & Oncology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Tien Le
- College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Merry Jennifer Markham
- Division of Hematology & Oncology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
| | - Greenberry B Taylor
- Department of Communication, Flagler College, St. Augustine, FL, United States
| | - Samantha R Paige
- College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States
- Johnson & Johnson, Inc, Health & Wellness Solutions, New Brunswick, NJ, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sass D, Vera E, Choi A, Acquaye A, Briceno N, Christ A, Grajkowska E, Jammula V, Levine J, Lindsley M, Reyes J, Roche K, Rogers JL, Timmer M, Boris L, Burton E, Lollo N, Panzer M, Penas-Prado M, Pillai V, Polskin L, Theeler BJ, Wu J, Gilbert MR, Armstrong TS, Leeper H. Evaluation of the key geriatric assessment constructs in primary brain tumor population - a descriptive study. J Geriatr Oncol 2022; 13:1194-1202. [PMID: 36041994 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2022.08.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2022] [Revised: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 08/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Despite an increasing aging population, older adults (≥ 65 years) with primary brain tumors (PBTs) are not routinely assessed for geriatric vulnerabilities. Recent reports of geriatric assessment (GA) in patients with glioblastomas demonstrated that GA may serve as a sensitive prognosticator of overall survival. Yet, current practice does not include routine evaluation of geriatric vulnerabilities and the relevance of GA has not been previously evaluated in broader cohorts of PBT patients. The objective of this descriptive study was to assess key GA constructs in adults with PBT dichotomized into older versus younger groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS A cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 579 participants with PBT recruited between 2016 and 2020, dichotomized into older (≥ 65 years, n = 92) and younger (≤ 64 years, n = 487) from an ongoing observational trial. GA constructs were evaluated using socio-demographic characteristics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), polypharmacy (>5 daily medications), Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), Neurologic Function Score (NFS), and patient-reported outcome assessments including general health, functional status, symptom burden and interference, and mood. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, chi-square tests, and Pearson correlations were used to evaluate differences between age groups. RESULTS Older participants were more likely to have problems with mobility (58% vs. 44%), usual activities (64% vs 50%) and self-care (38% vs 26%) compared to the younger participants (odds ratios [ORs] = 1.3-1.4, ps < 0.05), while older participants were less likely to report feeling distressed (OR = 0.4, p < 0.05). Older participants also had higher CCI and were more likely to have polypharmacy (OR = 1.7, ps < 0.05). Increasing age strongly correlated with worse KPS score (r = -0.232, OR = 1.4, p < 0.001) and worse NFS (r = 0.210, OR = 1.5, p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall symptom burden, symptom interference, and anxiety/depression scores. DISCUSSION While commonly used GA tools were not available, the study employed patient- and clinician-reported outcomes to identify potential future research directions for the use of GA in the broader neuro-oncology population. Findings illustrate missed opportunities in neuro-oncology practice and underscore the need for incorporation of GA into routine care of this population. Future studies are warranted to further evaluate the prognostic utility of GA and to better understand functional aging outcomes in this patient population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dilorom Sass
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
| | - Elizabeth Vera
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Anna Choi
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Alvina Acquaye
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Nicole Briceno
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Alexa Christ
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Ewa Grajkowska
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Varna Jammula
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jason Levine
- Office of Information Technology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Matthew Lindsley
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jennifer Reyes
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Kayla Roche
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - James L Rogers
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Michael Timmer
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Lisa Boris
- Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc, Frederick, MD, USA
| | - Eric Burton
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Nicole Lollo
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Marissa Panzer
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Marta Penas-Prado
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Valentina Pillai
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Lily Polskin
- Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Leidos Biomedical Research, Inc, Frederick, MD, USA
| | - Brett J Theeler
- Department of Neurology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Jing Wu
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Mark R Gilbert
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Terri S Armstrong
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Heather Leeper
- Neuro-Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Jensen JD, Shannon J, Iachan R, Deng Y, Kim SJ, Demark-Wahnefried W, Faseru B, Paskett ED, Hu J, Vanderpool RC, Lazovich D, Mendoza JA, Shete S, Robertson LB, Balkrishnan R, Briant KJ, Haaland B, Haggstrom DA, Fuemmeler BF. Examining Rural-Urban Differences in Fatalism and Information Overload: Data from 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022; 31:393-403. [PMID: 35091459 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-21-0355] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2021] [Revised: 07/01/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rural populations experience a disproportionate cancer burden relative to urban populations. One possibility is that rural populations are more likely to hold counterproductive cancer beliefs such as fatalism and information overload that undermine prevention and screening behaviors. METHODS Between 2016 and 2020, 12 U.S. cancer centers surveyed adults in their service areas using online and in-person survey instruments. Participants (N = 10,362) were designated as rural (n = 3,821) or urban (n = 6,541). All participants were 18 and older (M = 56.97, SD = 16.55), predominately non-Hispanic White (81%), and female (57%). Participants completed three items measuring cancer fatalism ("It seems like everything causes cancer," "There's not much you can do to lower your chances of getting cancer," and "When I think about cancer, I automatically think about death") and one item measuring cancer information overload ("There are so many different recommendations about preventing cancer, it's hard to know which ones to follow"). RESULTS Compared with urban residents, rural residents were more likely to believe that (i) everything causes cancer (OR = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17-1.43); (ii) prevention is not possible (OR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.19-1.51); and (iii) there are too many different recommendations about cancer prevention (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.13-1.41), and cancer is always fatal (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33). CONCLUSIONS Compared with their urban counterparts, rural populations exhibited higher levels of cancer fatalism and cancer information overload. IMPACT Future interventions targeting rural populations should account for higher levels of fatalism and information overload.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jakob D Jensen
- Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Jackilen Shannon
- Oregon Health and Science University - Portland State University, School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | | | | | - Sunny Jung Kim
- Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia
| | - Wendy Demark-Wahnefried
- Department of Nutrition Sciences and O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
| | - Babalola Faseru
- Department of Population Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
- University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Electra D Paskett
- Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, and OSU Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Jinxiang Hu
- University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, Kansas
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas
| | - Robin C Vanderpool
- Department of Health, Behavior and Society and Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
| | - DeAnn Lazovich
- Division of Epidemiology and Community Health and Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Jason A Mendoza
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington
| | - Sanjay Shete
- Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Linda B Robertson
- School of Medicine and UPMC Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Rajesh Balkrishnan
- Department of Public Health Sciences and UVA Cancer Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Katherine J Briant
- Office of Community Outreach and Engagement, Fred Hutch/University of Washington Cancer Consortium, Seattle, Washington
| | - Benjamin Haaland
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
- Department of Population Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sprague BL, Ahern TP, Herschorn SD, Sowden M, Weaver DL, Wood ME. Identifying key barriers to effective breast cancer control in rural settings. Prev Med 2021; 152:106741. [PMID: 34302837 PMCID: PMC8545865 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106741] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2021] [Revised: 06/01/2021] [Accepted: 07/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer mortality among women in the United States. Efforts to promote breast cancer control in rural settings face specific challenges. Access to breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment services is impaired by shortages of primary care and specialist providers, and geographic distance from medical facilities. Women in rural areas have comparable breast cancer mortality rates compared to women in urban settings, but this is due in large part to lower incidence rates and masks a substantial rural/urban disparity in breast cancer survival among women diagnosed with breast cancer. Mammography screening utilization rates are slightly lower among rural women than their urban counterparts, with a corresponding increase in late stage breast cancer. Differences in breast cancer survival persist after controlling for stage at diagnosis, largely due to disparities in access to treatment. Travel distance to treatment centers is the most substantial barrier to improved breast cancer outcomes in rural areas. While numerous interventions have been demonstrated in controlled studies to be effective in promoting treatment access and adherence, widespread dissemination in public health and clinical practice remains lacking. Efforts to improve breast cancer control in rural areas should focus on implementation strategies for improving access to breast cancer treatments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian L Sprague
- Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA.
| | - Thomas P Ahern
- Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Sally D Herschorn
- University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Michelle Sowden
- Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Donald L Weaver
- University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; Department of Pathology, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA
| | - Marie E Wood
- Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Petersen E, Jensen JG, Frandsen TF. Information seeking for coping with cancer: a systematic review. ASLIB J INFORM MANAG 2021. [DOI: 10.1108/ajim-01-2021-0004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
PurposeInformation seeking can be used to make sense of a situation or solve a problem. Information seeking can be considered a coping strategy when facing illness, crisis or other life-changing events. Cancer is a globally occurring, life-threatening disease, and this review aims to provide an overview of the existing literature on the active information seeking behaviour of cancer patients specifically focussing on how active information seeking serves as a coping strategy.Design/methodology/approachThis study adheres to current guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and consequently, thorough literature searches were conducted in four databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus which resulted in 7,179 publications. Following a careful screening process, this systematic review identifies 14 studies on the use of information seeking to cope with cancer.FindingsThe included studies consist of both qualitative and quantitative approaches to analysing the use of information seeking to cope with cancer. The included studies have focussed primarily on demographic factors, the impact of affect, information needs, sources and coping strategies.Research limitations/implicationsA number of research gaps within library and information science are identified. Bringing research in this field into information science could allow for a greater understanding of information literacy, the use of existing information and the process of information searching when using information seeking to cope with serious illness.Originality/valueThis systematic review focusses on how information seeking serves as a coping strategy for cancer patients and provides an overview of the recent literature.
Collapse
|
8
|
Graetz D, Rivas S, Fuentes L, Cáceres-Serrano A, Ferrara G, Antillon-Klussmann F, Metzger M, Rodriguez-Galindo C, Mack JW. The evolution of parents' beliefs about childhood cancer during diagnostic communication: a qualitative study in Guatemala. BMJ Glob Health 2021; 6:bmjgh-2020-004653. [PMID: 34039587 PMCID: PMC8160167 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004653] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Revised: 04/27/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Fatalistic cancer beliefs may contribute to delayed diagnosis and poor outcomes, including treatment abandonment, for children with cancer. This study explored Guatemalan parents' cancer beliefs during initial paediatric cancer communication, and the sociocultural and contextual factors that influence these beliefs. METHODS Twenty families of children with cancer were included in this study. We audio-recorded psychosocial conversations with psychologists and diagnostic conversations with oncologists, then conducted semi-structured interviews with parents to explore the evolution of their cancer beliefs. Audio-recordings were transcribed and translated from Spanish into English, with additional review in both languages by bilingual team members. All 60 transcripts were thematically analysed using a priori and novel codes. RESULTS Guatemalan parents' beliefs evolve as they learn about cancer through various sources. Sources of information external to the cancer centre, including prior experiences with cancer, media exposure, community discussion and clinical encounters, contribute to pre-existing beliefs. Many parents' pre-existing cancer beliefs are fatalistic; some are influenced by Mayan spirituality. Sources internal to the cancer centre include psychologists and oncologists, other providers, other patients and families. Psychologists acknowledge pre-existing beliefs and deliver cancer education using verbal explanations and hand-drawings. Oncologists provide diagnostic information and outline treatment plans. Both support hope by providing a path toward cure. Parents' lived experience is a culmination of sources and simultaneously independent. Ultimately most parents arrive at an understanding of cancer that is consistent with an allopathic medical model and offers optimism about outcomes. CONCLUSION An interdisciplinary communication process that includes cancer education, is attentive to pre-existing beliefs, and supports hope may encourage acceptance of the allopathic medical model and need for treatment. Providers in settings of all resource levels may be able to use these techniques to support cross-cultural cancer communication, reduce treatment abandonment and improve therapy adherence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dylan Graetz
- Department of Global Pediatric Medicine, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
| | - Silvia Rivas
- Department of Palliative Care, Unidad Nacional de Oncologia Pediatrica, Guatemala, Guatemala
| | - Lucia Fuentes
- Department of Psychology, Unidad Nacional de Oncologia Pediatrica, Guatemala, Guatemala
| | - Ana Cáceres-Serrano
- Department of Psychology, Unidad Nacional de Oncologia Pediatrica, Guatemala, Guatemala
| | - Gia Ferrara
- Department of Global Pediatric Medicine, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
| | - Federico Antillon-Klussmann
- Department of Oncology, Universidad Francisco Marroquin Facultad de Medicina, Guatemala City, Guatemala.,Department of Oncology, Unidad Nacional de Oncologia Pediatrica, Guatemala, Guatemala
| | - Monika Metzger
- Department of Global Pediatric Medicine, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
| | - Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo
- Department of Global Pediatric Medicine, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
| | - Jennifer W Mack
- Departments of Pediatric Oncology and Population Sciences, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Moser RP, Arndt J, Jimenez T, Liu B, Hesse BW. Perceptions of cancer as a death sentence: Tracking trends in public perceptions from 2008 to 2017. Psychooncology 2020; 30:511-519. [PMID: 33205560 DOI: 10.1002/pon.5596] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2020] [Revised: 10/26/2020] [Accepted: 11/03/2020] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE There has been steady progress in reducing cancer mortality in the United States; however, this progress hasn't been evenly distributed across regions. This paper assesses trends in cancer mortality salience (CMS), that is, agreeing that getting cancer is a death sentence, over time in the United States and examines correlates of CMS. METHODS Data from three administrations of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), gathered in 2008, 2013, and 2017, were merged, resulting in a total sample of 10,063 respondents. Trends in changes in CMS over time were examined as well as maps of the distribution of CMS in the United States. A logistic regression model was conducted, regressing CMS on a set of sociodemographic, psychological, health-related, and environmental predictors. RESULTS The aggregated percentage of US adults who agreed with the CMS statement changed over time and was modified by age. Geographic distribution of agreement with CMS was inconsistent across the United States. In the adjusted logistic model, perceived health (worse health), cancer prevention, fatalism, and confusion, and cancer status (no cancer) were all significantly associated with CMS. There was also a significant interaction between survey year and age. CONCLUSION Despite recent information that cancer mortality rates are decreasing, most US adults still see cancer as a death sentence and this is especially an issue in certain subgroups. These findings have ramifications for groups of people who may be at risk for developing cancer given their attitudes and beliefs that there isn't much they can do to prevent or control it.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard P Moser
- Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Jamie Arndt
- Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA
| | - Tyler Jimenez
- Department of Psychology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA
| | - Benmei Liu
- Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA
| | - Bradford W Hesse
- Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute (Retired), Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
| |
Collapse
|