Increasing Routine Cancer Screening Among Underserved Populations Through Effective Communication Strategies: Application of a Health Literacy Framework

How Do Scholars Conceptualize and Conduct Health and Digital Health Literacy Research? Survey of Federally Funded Scholars

BACKGROUND

The concept of health literacy (HL) is constantly evolving, and social determinants of health (SDoH) have been receiving considerable attention in public health scholarship. Since a 1-size-fits-all approach for HL fails to account for multiple contextual factors and as a result poses challenges in improving literacy levels, there is a need to develop a deeper understanding of the current state of HL and digital health literacy (DHL) research.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined scholars' conceptualization and scope of work focused on HL and DHL.

METHODS

Using a search string, investigators (N=2042) focusing on HL, DHL, or both were identified from the grantee websites of the National Institutes of Health RePORTER (RePORT Expenditures and Results) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The investigators were emailed a survey via Qualtrics. Survey questions examined the focus of work; whether the investigators studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH; the frameworks, definitions, and approaches used; and research settings. We analyzed survey data using SPSS Statistics version 28 and descriptive analysis, including frequencies and percentages, was conducted. Chi-square tests were performed to explore the association between the focus of work, settings, and age groups included in the investigators' research.

RESULTS

A total of 193 (9.5%) of 2042 investigators responded to the online survey. Most investigators (76/153, 49.7%) were from public health, 83/193 (43%) reported their research focused on HL alone, 46/193 (23.8%) mentioned DHL, and 64/193 (33.2%) mentioned both. The majority (133/153, 86.9%) studied HL/DHL in combination with other SDoH, 106/135 (78.5%) conducted HL/DHL work in a community setting, and 100/156 (64.1%) reported not using any specific definition to guide their work. Digital tools (89/135, 65.9%), plain-language materials (82/135, 60.7%), and visual guides (56/135, 41.5%) were the top 3 approaches used. Most worked with adults (131/139, 94.2%) and all races and ethnicities (47/121, 38.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

HL and DHL research largely considered SDoH. Multiple HL tools and approaches were used that support the examination and improvement of literacy and communication surrounding health care issues.

REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research

Detecting cancer early is essential to improving cancer outcomes. Minoritized groups remain underrepresented in early detection cancer research, which means that findings and interventions are not generalisable across the population, thus exacerbating disparities in cancer outcomes. In light of these challenges, this paper sets out twelve recommendations to build relations of trust and include minoritized groups in ED cancer research. The Recommendations were formulated by a range of stakeholders at the 2022 REPRESENT consensus-building workshop and are based on empirical data, including a systematic literature review and two ethnographic case studies in the US and the UK. The recommendations focus on: Long-term relationships that build trust; Sharing available resources; Inclusive and accessible communication; Harnessing community expertise; Unique risks and benefits; Compensation and support; Representative samples; Demographic data; Post-research support; Sharing results; Research training; Diversifying research teams. For each recommendation, the paper outlines the rationale, specifications for how different stakeholders may implement it, and advice for best practices. Instead of isolated recruitment, public involvement and engagement activities, the recommendations here aim to advance mutually beneficial and trusting relationships between researchers and research participants embedded in ED cancer research institutions.

Insights from Research Network Collaborators on How to Reach Rural Communities with Cancer Prevention and Control Programs

PURPOSE

This paper examines community leaders' and researchers' recommendations for reaching rural communities in a southeastern U.S. state with cancer prevention and control programming.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A qualitative inquiry of a grant network's research and community councils was conducted to explore members' opinions on how to engage rural communities and obtain input on how to recruit rural organizations for a mini-grants program.

STUDY SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION

Telephone/virtual interviews were conducted with all 13 council members. Responses were analyzed using thematic analysis and findings were examined within the context of system-centric and patient-centric dimensions.

RESULTS

Council members discussed limited education, lack of insurance, low socioeconomic status, health care avoidance, and transportation as barriers to cancer prevention and control. They recommended reaching rural populations by partnering with community and faith-based organizations, use of targeted multi-media, and tailored cancer education trainings.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings are used for guiding outreach with rural communities and recruitment of rural organizations for a cancer-focused mini-grants initiative.

Health Literacy Correlates to HPV Vaccination Among US Adults Ages 27-45

Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is now available for adults aged 27-45 as a shared clinical decision. Health literacy skills (i.e., accessing, understanding, appraising, applying information) may facilitate vaccine decision-making for adults with a provider recommendation. This study assessed associations between health literacy skills and willingness to get a provider-recommended HPV vaccine among newly eligible US adults. In 2020, US participants (51% women), aged 27-45 years, were surveyed online (n = 691). The outcome was willingness (willing/not willing) to get the HPV vaccine with provider recommendation. Measures were adapted from Sørensen's multidimensional European Health Literacy Scale, which assesses health literacy among four domains (i.e., access, understanding, appraisal, application). Adjusted odds ratios were calculated for the outcome and each health literacy domain, adjusting for personal health determinants (e.g., age, sex). The sample consisted of primarily non-Hispanic (91.2%), White (74.4%), and married (60.7%) adults. Approximately 65% of participants were willing to get a provider-recommended HPV vaccine. Higher willingness to vaccinate with provider recommendation was significantly associated with increased HPV knowledge (understanding; aOR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.04, 1.24), ability to understand HPV information (understanding; aOR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.09, 3.52), increased perceived vulnerability to HPV-related cancer (appraising; aOR = 3.22, 95% CI 1.83, 5.69), and the need for more information on vaccine safety to seek vaccination (applying; aOR = 3.25; 95% CI 2.05, 5.16). Utilizing a multidimensional health literacy framework to evaluate facilitators to HPV vaccination uptake among adults aged 27-45 can help guide future interventions by targeting accurate, easy-to-understand HPV information that connects vaccination efficacy to reduction in HPV cancer risk.

Application of a Health Literacy Framework to Explore Patients' Knowledge of the Link between HPV and Cancer

The human papillomavirus (HPV) is a sexually transmitted infection and causes most oropharyngeal (e.g., throat) and anogenital (e.g., anal, cervical) cancers. Research indicates low knowledge about the link between HPV and cancer among the general population, and similar low knowledge of HPV among individuals diagnosed with HPV-associated cancers. This is important because HPV status can have implications for treatment, prognosis, and future sexual decisions. Using a health literacy framework, this study explored how patients diagnosed with HPV-associated cancers accessed, understood, appraised, and applied HPV information. We conducted 27 in-depth interviews with patients seeking care at a comprehensive cancer center; and data were analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Findings revealed that patients' primary source of HPV information was medical providers (access); and many patients exhibited limited understanding of HPV and its role in their cancer diagnosis (understand). Most patients (17 of 27) did not mention HPV as the cause of their cancer. Many patients displayed difficulty connecting HPV with their lifestyles (appraise); and few discussed plans to engage in HPV prevention practices going forward (apply). Future research should focus on strategies to improve understanding of HPV which could increase vaccine uptake, reduce stigma, and enhance informed decision-making among HPV-associated cancer patients.