Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the state of smartphone applications for cancer intended for the general public with a focus on interactive features, content sources, and application developer affiliations. The level of health provider involvement in screening or appraising application content was also assessed. Methods: A total of 123 apps were identified for analysis from two major mobile application marketplaces (Apple iTunes = 40; Google Play = 83). Application characteristics were collected, analyzed, and reported. These included the mobile platform, cost, application developer affiliation, date of last update, purpose of application, content sources, and interactive features. Results: In the study sample, 50% of the applications focused on general information for cancer (62/123). Next, this was followed by applications for breast cancer (15%, 19/123) and skin cancer (7%, 8/123). Only 10% of application descriptions (12/123) identified sources for application content. Interactive features included the ability to monitor symptoms, side effects, treatments, and chronic pain (20%, 25/123). Only 3% of the applications (4/123) stated content had been evaluated by health providers. Conclusions: This study contributes an updated analysis of applications for cancer available in the digital health marketplace. The findings have implications for information quality and supportive resources for cancer care. More transparent information about content sources, organizational affiliations, and level of health provider oversight in screening application content is warranted. Recommendations for improving the quality of cancer applications are also offered.

Background: Health misinformation on social media can negatively affect knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, undermining clinical care and public health efforts. Therefore, it is vital to better understand the public’s experience with health misinformation on social media. Objective: The goal of this analysis was to examine perceptions of the social media information environment and identify associations between health misinformation perceptions and health communication behaviors among US adults. Methods: Analyses used data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey (N=6252). Weighted unadjusted proportions described respondents’ perceptions of the amount of false or misleading health information on social media (“perceived misinformation amount”) and how difficult it is to discern true from false information on social media (“perceived discernment difficulty”). Weighted multivariable logistic regressions examined (1) associations of sociodemographic characteristics and subjective literacy measures with misinformation perceptions and (2) relationships between misinformation perceptions and health communication behaviors (ie, sharing personal or general health information on social media and using social media information in health decisions or in discussions with health care providers). Results: Over one-third of social media users (35.61%) perceived high levels of health misinformation, and approximately two-thirds (66.56%) reported high perceived discernment difficulty. Odds of perceiving high amounts of misinformation were lower among non-Hispanic Black/African American (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.407, 95% CI 0.282-0.587) and Hispanic (aOR 0.610, 95% CI 0.449-0.831) individuals compared to White individuals. Those with lower subjective health literacy were less likely to report high perceived misinformation amount (aOR 0.602, 95% CI 0.374-0.970), whereas those with lower subjective digital literacy were more likely to report high perceived misinformation amount (aOR 1.775, 95% CI 1.400-2.251). Compared to White individuals, Hispanic individuals had lower odds of reporting high discernment difficulty (aOR 0.620, 95% CI 0.462-0.831). Those with lower subjective digital literacy (aOR 1.873, 95% CI 1.478-2.374) or numeracy (aOR 1.465, 95% CI 1.047-2.049) were more likely to report high discernment difficulty. High perceived misinformation amount was associated with lower odds of sharing general health information on social media (aOR 0.742, 95% CI 0.568-0.968), using social media information to make health decisions (aOR 0.273, 95% CI 0.156-0.479), and using social media information in discussions with health care providers (aOR 0.460, 95% CI 0.323-0.655). High perceived discernment difficulty was associated with higher odds of using social media information in health decisions (aOR 1.724, 95% CI 1.208-2.460) and health care provider discussions (aOR 1.389, 95% CI 1.035-1.864). Conclusions: Perceptions of high health misinformation prevalence and discernment difficulty are widespread among social media users, and each has unique associations with sociodemographic characteristics, literacy, and health communication behaviors. These insights can help inform future health communication interventions.

Emotion values vary within and between individualistic and collectivistic cultural contexts. The form of collectivism prevalent in Latin America emphasizes simpatía, a cultural model that stresses the relational benefits of positivity but also the costs of negativity. This model was predicted to engender a pattern of emotion values distinct from that of the more commonly studied collectivist group, people of Asian heritage (PAH), among whom an emphasis on moderating positive and negative emotions is typically observed, and from people of European heritage (PEH), among whom authenticity in emotions is typically valued. College students of Latino (n = 659), Asian (n = 446), and European (n = 456) heritage living in the United States completed a study examining positive and negative emotion values. Mixed-model analysis of variance that included interactions among culture, emotion valence (positive, negative), value type (desirability, appropriateness), and response type (experience, expression) suggested distinct patterns of emotion values across groups. People of Latino heritage (PLH) rated positive emotions as more desirable and appropriate to experience and express than PAH (ps < .001) but less desirable and appropriate to experience and express than PEH (ps ≤ .001). PLH also rated negative emotions as more undesirable (ps < .001) but similarly inappropriate to experience and express (ps > .05) compared with PAH and as similarly undesirable (ps > .05) but more inappropriate to experience (p < .001) compared with PEH. The emotion-value pattern that emerged was largely consistent with simpatía for PLH and provides new evidence of similarity and variation in emotion values in three distinct contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Cancer clinical trials are essential for testing new treatments and represent state-of-the-art cancer treatment, but only a small percentage of patients ever enroll in a trial. Under-enrollment is an even greater problem among minorities, particularly African Americans, representing a racial/ethnic disparity in cancer care. One understudied cause is patient-physician communication, which is often of poor quality during clinical interactions between African-American patients and non-African-American physicians. Partnering Around Cancer Clinical Trials (PACCT) involves a transdisciplinary theoretical model proposing that patient and physician individual attitudes and beliefs and their interpersonal communication during racially discordant clinical interactions influence outcomes related to patients’ decisions to participate in a trial. The overall goal of the study is to test a multilevel intervention designed to increase rates at which African-American and White men with prostate cancer make an informed decision to participate in a clinical trial. Data collection will occur at two NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Participants include physicians who treat men with prostate cancer and their African-American and White patients who are potentially eligible for a clinical trial. The study uses two distinct research designs to evaluate the effects of two behavioral interventions, one focused on patients and the other on physicians. The primary goal is to increase the number of patients who decide to enroll in a trial; secondary goals include increasing rates of physician trial offers, improving the quality of patient-physician communication during video recorded clinical interactions in which trials may be discussed, improving patients’ understanding of trials offered, and increasing the number of patients who actually enroll. Aims are to 1) determine the independent and combined effects of the two interventions on outcomes; 2) compare the effects of the interventions on African-American versus White men; and 3) examine the extent to which patient-physician communication mediates the effect of the interventions on the outcomes. PACCT has the potential to identify ways to increase clinical trial rates in a diverse patient population. The research can also improve access to high quality clinical care for African American men bearing the disproportionate burden of disparities in prostate and other cancers. Clinical Trials.gov registration number: NCT02906241 (September 8, 2016).

Black people are disproportionately affected by cancer incidence and mortality yet underrepresented in cancer clinical trials.^1,2 Black individuals may be less willing to participate in trials owing to barriers that disproportionately affect this group, such as low health literacy, financial burden, mistrust in clinicians, and group-based medical suspicion (ie, belief that members of one’s racial group should be suspicious of the health care system).^3,4 However, minorities who are eligible and invited to participate in a trial are as likely to enroll as White patients, suggesting that enrollment disparities may stem from clinician-level or system-level factors, such as restrictive eligibility criteria or physicians’ reluctance to discuss trials with Black patients.^3,5,6