The ideological divide in confidence in science and participation in medical research

The influence of political ideology on clinical trial knowledge, invitation, and participation among adults in the United States

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials remain a critical component of medical innovation. Evidence suggests that individuals' political ideologies may impact their health behaviors. However, there is a paucity of literature examining the relationship between political ideologies and clinical trial knowledge and participation.

METHODS

Study data were derived from Health Information National Trends Survey 5 Cycle 4 (n = 3300), which was conducted from February to June 2020. We used participants' characteristics to estimate the prevalence of clinical trial knowledge and participation. We used multivariable logistic regressions to investigate whether political ideology had a significant impact on clinical trial knowledge and participation. Jack-knife replicate weights were applied for population-level estimates.

RESULTS

Most participants were White (64.2%), earned above US$50,000 (62.4%), and lived in urban areas (88.0%). About 59.2% reported having some knowledge of clinical trials, and only 8.9% had ever been invited to participate in clinical trials. A total of 37.0%, 29.5%, and 33.5% of the population endorsed moderate, liberal, and conservative political viewpoints respectively. In the adjusted logistic regression analysis, compared to conservatives, liberals (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-2.80) and moderates (adjusted odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.88) had significantly greater odds of having knowledge of clinical trials. Also, liberals had higher odds of receiving invitations to participate in clinical trials (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.85; p = 0.023) and greater odds of trial participation (odds ratio, 3.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-10.33; p = 0.007) compared to moderates.

CONCLUSIONS

The mechanism underlying the higher rates of clinical trial invitations to liberals is unclear and requires further comprehensive investigation. Similarly, further qualitative studies are needed to understand the attributes that promote knowledge and increased likelihood of clinical trial participation among liberals. This will provide crucial insight to help design interventions that further involve conservatives and moderates in clinical trials and scientific enterprise.

"When people see me, they know me; they trust what I say": characterizing the role of trusted sources for smoke risk communication in the Okanogan River Airshed Emphasis Area

INTRODUCTION

As wildfire smoke events increase in intensity and frequency in the Pacific Northwest, there is a growing need for effective communication on the health risks of smoke exposure. Delivery through a trusted source or intermediary has been shown to improve reception of risk communication messages. This is especially salient in rural and tribal communities who may be hesitant to trust information from state and federal agency sources. This study aims to identify and characterize trusted sources for smoke risk information in the Okanogan River Airshed Emphasis Area (ORAEA), a rural region of North Central Washington state that is heavily impacted by smoke from wildfires and prescribed fire.

METHODS

The research team conducted a qualitative study using data collected through key informant interviews and focus groups to assess the role of various sources and intermediaries in disseminating smoke risk information. We used a consensual coding approach in NVivo Qualitative Analysis Software to sort data into preliminary categories, which were grouped into themes using a thematic analysis approach. We used member checking and iterative feedback processes with local project partners throughout the project to ensure credibility of results.

RESULTS

Through the analysis, we identified three themes characterizing trusted sources for smoke risk communication in the ORAEA. These themes were: (1) local and tribal sources of information are perceived as more trustworthy than state and federal government sources, (2) trustworthiness is determined by an evaluation of multiple factors, in particular, perceived credibility, quality of information, and relationship with the source, and (3) conservative political ideology and perceived parallels with COVID-19 communication influence perception of trust. Within each theme, we identified several sub-themes, which contributed additional nuance to our analysis.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insights into which sources of information are trusted by rural and tribal community members in the ORAEA and why. Results from our study emphasize the importance of relationships and collaboration with local and tribal partners in smoke risk communication. In this paper, we discuss implications for state and federal agency practitioners and present recommendations for how to work with local and tribal partners on smoke risk communication.