There is a need to investigate which health information sources are used and trusted by people with limited health literacy to help identify strategies for addressing knowledge gaps that can contribute to preventable illness. We examined whether health literacy was associated with people’s use of and trust in a range of potential health information sources. Six hundred participants from a GfK Internet survey panel completed an online survey. We assessed health literacy using the Newest Vital Sign, the sources participants used to get health information, and the extent to which participants trusted health information from these sources. We performed multivariable regressions, controlling for demographic characteristics. Lower health literacy was associated with lower odds of using medical websites for health information and with higher odds of using television, social media, and blogs or celebrity webpages. People with lower health literacy were less likely to trust health information from specialist doctors and dentists, but more likely to trust television, social media, blogs/celebrity webpages, friends, and pharmaceutical companies. People with limited health literacy had higher rates of using and trusting sources such as social media and blogs, which might contain lower quality health information compared to information from healthcare professionals. Thus, it might be necessary to enhance the public’s ability to evaluate the quality of health information sources. The results of this study could be used to improve the reach of high-quality health information among people with limited health literacy and thereby increase the effectiveness of health communication programs and campaigns.

The increasing importance of genomic information in clinical care heightens the need to examine how individuals understand, value, and communicate about this information. Based on a conceptual framework of genomics-related health literacy, we examined whether health literacy was related to knowledge, self-efficacy, and perceived importance of genetics and family health history (FHH) and communication about FHH in a medically underserved population. The analytic sample was composed of 624 patients at a primary care clinic in a large urban hospital. About half of the participants (47%) had limited health literacy; 55% had no education beyond high school, and 58% were Black. In multivariable models, limited health literacy was associated with lower genetic knowledge (β = −0.55, SE = 0.10, p < .0001), lower awareness of FHH (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.28, 0.90], p = .020), and greater perceived importance of genetic information (OR = 1.95, 95% CI [1.27, 3.00], p = .0022) but lower perceived importance of FHH information (OR = 0.47, 95% CI [0.26, 0.86], p = .013) and more frequent communication with a doctor about FHH (OR = 2.02, 95% CI [1.27, 3.23], p = .0032). The findings highlight the importance of considering domains of genomics-related health literacy (e.g., knowledge, oral literacy) in developing educational strategies for genomic information. Health literacy research is essential to avoid increasing disparities in information and health outcomes as genomic information reaches more patients.

Identifying unaffected individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility allows for genetic evaluation and implementation of individualized prevention and screening recommendations.^1-6 However, most people with inherited cancer susceptibility are unaware of their condition.^7-10 Additionally, more genes have been associated with inherited cancers,^11-19 and broader ranges of family histories are indications for genetic testing,²⁰ increasing the opportunity to identify individuals at increased risk. Once identified, at-risk individuals may face barriers to accessing genetic services due to the limited number of trained genetic specialists for direct patient care.^21-23 Scalable and sustainable strategies are needed to effectively identify individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility and deliver genetic services.

Background: Cancer genetic testing to assess an individual’s cancer risk and to enable genomics-informed cancer treatment has grown exponentially in the past decade. Because of this continued growth and a shortage of health care workers, there is a need for automated strategies that provide high-quality genetics services to patients to reduce the clinical demand for genetics providers. Conversational agents have shown promise in managing mental health, pain, and other chronic conditions and are increasingly being used in cancer genetic services. However, research on how patients interact with these agents to satisfy their information needs is limited. Objective: Our primary aim is to assess user interactions with a conversational agent for pretest genetics education. Methods: We conducted a feasibility study of user interactions with a conversational agent who delivers pretest genetics education to primary care patients without cancer who are eligible for cancer genetic evaluation. The conversational agent provided scripted content similar to that delivered in a pretest genetic counseling visit for cancer genetic testing. Outside of a core set of information delivered to all patients, users were able to navigate within the chat to request additional content in their areas of interest. An artificial intelligence–based preprogrammed library was also established to allow users to ask open-ended questions to the conversational agent. Transcripts of the interactions were recorded. Here, we describe the information selected, time spent to complete the chat, and use of the open-ended question feature. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative measures, and thematic analyses were used for qualitative responses. Results: We invited 103 patients to participate, of which 88.3% (91/103) were offered access to the conversational agent, 39% (36/91) started the chat, and 32% (30/91) completed the chat. Most users who completed the chat indicated that they wanted to continue with genetic testing (21/30, 70%), few were unsure (9/30, 30%), and no patient declined to move forward with testing. Those who decided to test spent an average of 10 (SD 2.57) minutes on the chat, selected an average of 1.87 (SD 1.2) additional pieces of information, and generally did not ask open-ended questions. Those who were unsure spent 4 more minutes on average (mean 14.1, SD 7.41; P=.03) on the chat, selected an average of 3.67 (SD 2.9) additional pieces of information, and asked at least one open-ended question. Conclusions: The pretest chat provided enough information for most patients to decide on cancer genetic testing, as indicated by the small number of open-ended questions. A subset of participants were still unsure about receiving genetic testing and may require additional education or interpersonal support before making a testing decision. Conversational agents have the potential to become a scalable alternative for pretest genetics education, reducing the clinical demand on genetics providers.