Effects of Communicating Prevalence Information about Two Common Health Conditions

Effects of Race-Specific Prevalence and Racial Disparity Information About Obesity and Diabetes

There are significant racial disparities in obesity and diabetes such that prevalence rates are higher among Black Americans than White Americans. This study examined effects of communicating the prevalence of obesity/diabetes and comparing race-specific prevalence rates between White and Black Americans to highlight racial health disparities. We conducted two preregistered, between-subjects randomized online experiments with an analytic sample of 1,232 U.S. adults (n = 609 for the obesity study and n = 623 for the diabetes study) stratified by race. In each experiment, we randomly assigned respondents to read an obesity/diabetes message 1) without disease prevalence information, 2) with the national obesity/diabetes prevalence rate, 3) with the race-specific obesity/diabetes prevalence rate among White Americans, 4) with the race-specific prevalence rate among Black Americans, or 5) comparing the race-specific prevalence rates between White and Black Americans, or 6) to a no-message condition. Results showed that diabetes prevalence information reduced the overestimation of race-specific diabetes prevalence. Comparing the obesity prevalence rate among White Americans to that of Black Americans increased support for policies to reduce racial health disparities, but also made Black respondents less likely to cut calories. Race-specific disease prevalence information and intergroup disease prevalence comparisons may have both positive and unintended consequences on message recipients. Health educators should be more cautious when communicating disease prevalence information.

Effects of communicating health disparities using social comparison framing: A comprehensive review

Communicating health disparities in mass and social media has typically taken the form of comparing disease risks and outcomes between two or more social groups, a strategy known as social comparison framing. This comprehensive review examined the design and results of 17 studies from 15 peer-reviewed journal articles about the effects of social comparison framing of health disparities. Most studies focus on race-based disparities across a variety of health topics. For individual-level outcomes, social comparison tends to reduce perceived disease risks for the lower disease prevalence group while prompting negative emotions and yielding inconsistent impact on health behavioral intentions among members of the higher prevalence group. For societal-level outcomes, social comparison often has either null or polarizing effects on support for policies to address these disparities that vary by racial identity/attitudes of the respondents. Studies also find that racial comparisons trigger lower levels of support for policy remedies relative to economic, educational, or geographic comparisons. We conclude that social comparison framing of health disparities, in the absence of broader discussion of the social and structural causes of these disparities, is more likely to incur negative consequences. We propose several possible strategies to communicate health disparity information more effectively.

Effects of communicating lifetime risks and screening rates of colorectal cancer and breast cancer

Colorectal cancer and breast cancer are among the most common types of cancer in the United States, and cancer screening is an effective way to detect and treat these cancers early. Health news stories, medical websites, and media campaigns regularly highlight the national lifetime risks of specific cancers and their screening rates, but recent research suggests that people tend to overestimate the prevalence of health problems but underestimate the prevalence of disease prevention behaviors in the absence of numerical information. This study featured two online experiments, one focused on breast cancer (N = 632) and one focused on colorectal cancer (N = 671), to examine the effects of communicating national cancer lifetime risks and screening rates among samples of screening-eligible adults in the United States. Findings confirmed prior work in showing that people overestimated colorectal/breast cancer lifetime risks but underestimated colorectal/breast cancer screening rates. Communicating the national lifetime risk of dying from colorectal/breast cancer lowered people's national risk estimates, which in turn was associated with lower perceived cancer risks for themselves. In contrast, communicating the national colorectal/breast cancer screening rate increased people's estimates of the prevalence of cancer screening, which in turn was associated with higher perceived self-efficacy to engage in cancer screening and greater screening intentions. We conclude that efforts to promote cancer screening may benefit from messages that include data on national cancer screening rates but may not benefit from including national rates of lifetime cancer risks.

The Effects of Vaccine Efficacy Information on Vaccination Intentions Through Perceived Response Efficacy and Hope

Response efficacy information indicating the effectiveness of a recommended behavior in risk reduction is an important component of health communication. For example, many messages regarding COVID-19 vaccines featured numerical vaccine efficacy rates in preventing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. While the relationship between disease risk perceptions and fear has been well established, we know less about the psychological factors involved in communicating vaccine efficacy information, such as response efficacy perceptions and hope. This study examines the effects of numerical vaccine efficacy information and message framing on vaccination intentions and their relationship to perceived response efficacy and hope, using a fictitious infectious disease similar to COVID-19. Findings suggest that communicating a high efficacy rate of the vaccine in preventing severe illness increased perceived response efficacy, which in turn boosted vaccination intention directly and indirectly through increasing hope. Also, fear about the virus was positively associated with hope about the vaccine. Implications of using response efficacy information and hope appeals in health communication and vaccination promotion are discussed.