nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.03.2008 | Original Article

Frustrated and Confused: The American Public Rates its Cancer-Related Information-Seeking Experiences

verfasst von: Neeraj K. Arora, PhD, Bradford W. Hesse, PhD, Barbara K. Rimer, Dr.PH, K. Viswanath, PhD, Marla L. Clayman, PhD, Robert T. Croyle, PhD

Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Ausgabe 3/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Ensuring access to high-quality cancer-related information is important for the success of cancer prevention and control efforts.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a population-based assessment of the barriers faced by people searching for cancer information.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional data from the National Cancer Institute’s 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey.

PARTICIPANTS

A nationally representative sample of individuals in the USA (n = 6,369).

MEASUREMENTS

We assessed whether respondents had ever sought cancer-related information and examined ratings of their information-seeking experiences and beliefs regarding causes of cancer and its prevention. Linear and logistic regression models were estimated to determine predictors of negative experiences and associations between experiences and cancer beliefs.

RESULTS

Nearly one half (44.9%) of Americans had searched for cancer information. Many reported negative experiences, including the search process requiring a lot of effort (47.7%), expressing frustration (41.3%), and concerns about the quality of the information found (57.7%). Respondents lacking health insurance or a high school education experienced the greatest difficulty. Compared to those reporting the most positive experiences, information seekers reporting more negative experiences were more likely to report that almost everything caused cancer [odds ratio (OR) 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5–2.6], that not much can be done to prevent cancer (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.9–3.8), and that it is hard to know which cancer prevention recommendations to follow (OR 3.2, 95% CI 2.3–4.5).

CONCLUSIONS

While a significant proportion of the American public searches for cancer information, suboptimal experiences are common. Facilitation of information seeking will be critical for promoting informed decision making in cancer prevention and control.

Institute of Medicine. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000.

Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:681–92.PubMedCrossRef

Woolf SH, Chan EC, Harris R, et al. Promoting informed choice: transforming health care to dispense knowledge for decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143:293–300.PubMed

Rimer BK, Briss PA, Zeller PK, Chan ECY, Woolf SH. Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer. 2004;101(5 Suppl):1214–28.PubMedCrossRef

Arora NK, McHorney CA. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Med Care. 2000;38:335–41.PubMedCrossRef

Levinson W, Kao A, Kuby A, Thisted RA. Not all patients want to participate in decision making. a national study of public preferences. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:531–5.PubMedCrossRef

Viswanath K. Science and society: the communications revolution and cancer control. Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:828–35.PubMedCrossRef

Cline RJ, Haynes KM. Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res. 2001;16:671–92.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:2618–24.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Rutten LJ, Arora NK, Bakos AD, Aziz N, Rowland J. Information needs and sources of information among cancer patients: a systematic review of research (1980-2003). Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57:250–61.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Guadagnoli E, et al. Patients’ perceptions of quality of care for colorectal cancer by race, ethnicity, and language. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6576–86.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Hesse BW, et al. The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination. J Health Commun. 2004;9:443–60; discussion 81–4.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Arora NK, Johnson P, Gustafson DH, McTavish F, Hawkins RP, Pingree S. Barriers to information access, perceived health competence, and psychosocial health outcomes: test of a mediation model in a breast cancer sample. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;47:37–46.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Fox S. Health information online. Technical report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2005.

16.

Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions: how Internet users decide what information to trust when they or their loved ones are sick. Technical report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2002.

17.

Fox S, Fallows D. Internet health resources. Technical Report from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2003.

18.

Squiers L, Finney Rutten LJ, Treiman K, Bright MA, Hesse B. Cancer patients’ information needs across the cancer care continuum: evidence from the Cancer Information Service. J Health Commun. 2005;10 (1 Suppl):15–34.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Tu HT, Hargraves JL. Seeking health care information: most consumers still on the sidelines. Issue Brief Cent Stud Health Syst Change. 2003;(61):1–4.

20.

Jung HP, Baerveldt C, Olesen F, Grol R, Wensing M. Patient characteristics as predictors of primary health care preferences: a systematic literature analysis. Health Expect. 2003;6:160–81.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285:2612–21.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor—let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277:1244–5.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review. BMJ. 1999;318:647–9.PubMed

24.

Jadad AR, Gagliardi A. Rating health information on the Internet: navigating to knowledge or to Babel? JAMA. 1998;279:611–4.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Viswanath K, Breen N, Meissner H, et al. Cancer knowledge and disparities in the information age. J Health Commun. 2006;11(1 Suppl):1–17.PubMedCrossRef

26.

Curtin R, Presser S, Singer E. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2005;69:87–98.CrossRef

27.

Biener L, Garrett CA, Gilpin EA, et al. Consequences of declining survey response rates for smoking prevalence estimates. Am J Prev Med. 2004;27:254–7.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Frustrated and Confused: The American Public Rates its Cancer-Related Information-Seeking Experiences
verfasst von: Neeraj K. Arora, PhD
Bradford W. Hesse, PhD
Barbara K. Rimer, Dr.PH
K. Viswanath, PhD
Marla L. Clayman, PhD
Robert T. Croyle, PhD
Publikationsdatum: 01.03.2008
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Ausgabe 3/2008
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Elektronische ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0406-y

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

25.04.2024 | Hypotonie | Nachrichten

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Frustrated and Confused: The American Public Rates its Cancer-Related Information-Seeking Experiences

Abstract

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVE

DESIGN

PARTICIPANTS

MEASUREMENTS

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Viel Bewegung in der Parkinsonforschung

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Update Innere Medizin

Springer Medizin

Abstract

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVE

DESIGN

PARTICIPANTS

MEASUREMENTS

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2008

Health Care Utilization and Costs Associated with Childhood Abuse

The Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Glycemic Control Among Patients with Diabetes: The Kaiser Permanente Northern California Diabetes Registry

Older Adults and Chronic Kidney Disease Decision Making by Primary Care Physicians: A Scholarly Review and Research Agenda

Tips for Teachers of Evidence-Based Medicine: Adjusting for Prognostic Imbalances (Confounding Variables) in Studies on Therapy or Harm

A New Age for Cancer Information Seeking: Are We Better Off Now?

Factors Associated with Misperception of Weight in the Stroke Belt

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Viel Bewegung in der Parkinsonforschung

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

Update Innere Medizin