Brown-Johnson Cati G, Boeckman Lindsay M, White Ashley H, Burbank Andrea D, Paulson Sjonna, Beebe Laura A
Evaluation Sciences Unit, Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States.
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, United States.
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2018 Feb 12;4(1):e8. doi: 10.2196/publichealth.6260.
Modern technology (ie, websites and social media) has significantly changed social mores in health information access and delivery. Although mass media campaigns for health intervention have proven effective and cost-effective in changing health behavior at a population scale, this is best studied in traditional media sources (ie, radio and television). Digital health interventions are options that use short message service/text messaging, social media, and internet technology. Although exposure to these products is becoming ubiquitous, electronic health information is novel, incompletely disseminated, and frequently inaccurate, which decreases public trust. Previous research has shown that audience trust in health care providers significantly moderates health outcomes, demographics significantly influence audience trust in electronic media, and preexisting health behaviors such as smoking status significantly moderate audience receptivity to traditional mass media. Therefore, modern health educators must assess audience trust in all sources, both media (traditional and digital) and interpersonal, to balance pros and cons before structuring multicomponent community health interventions.
We aimed to explore current trust and moderators of trust in health information sources given recent changes in digital health information access and delivery to inform design of future health interventions in Oklahoma.
We conducted phone surveys of a cross-sectional sample of 1001 Oklahoma adults (age 18-65 years) in spring 2015 to assess trust in seven media sources: traditional (television and radio), electronic (online and social media), and interpersonal (providers, insurers, and family/friends). We also gathered information on known moderators of trust (sociodemographics and tobacco use status). We modeled log odds of a participant rating a source as "trustworthy" (SAS PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC), with subanalysis for confounders (sociodemographics and tobacco use).
Oklahomans showed the highest trust in interpersonal sources: 81% (808/994) reported providers were trustworthy, 55% (550/999) for friends and family, and 48% (485/998) for health insurers. For media sources, 24% of participants (232/989) rated the internet as trustworthy, followed by 21% of participants for television (225/998), 18% for radio (199/988), and only 11% for social media (110/991). Despite this low self-reported trust in social media, 40% (406/991) of participants reported using social media for tobacco-related health information. Trust in health providers did not vary by subpopulation, but sociodemographic variables (gender, income, and education) and tobacco use status significantly moderated trust in other sources. Women were on the whole more trusting than men, trust in media decreased with income, and trust in friends and family decreased with education.
Health education interventions should incorporate digital media, particularly when targeting low-income populations. Utilizing health care providers in social media settings could leverage high-trust and low-cost features of providers and social media, respectively.
现代技术(即网站和社交媒体)已显著改变了健康信息获取与传播方面的社会习俗。尽管大规模的健康干预媒体宣传活动已被证明在改变人群层面的健康行为方面有效且具有成本效益,但这在传统媒体(即广播和电视)方面得到了最好的研究。数字健康干预是使用短信服务/文本信息、社交媒体和互联网技术的选项。尽管接触这些产品正变得无处不在,但电子健康信息是新颖的、传播不完全且常常不准确的,这降低了公众的信任度。先前的研究表明,受众对医疗保健提供者的信任显著调节健康结果,人口统计学特征显著影响受众对电子媒体的信任,而诸如吸烟状况等既有的健康行为显著调节受众对传统大众媒体的接受度。因此,现代健康教育工作者必须评估受众对所有来源(包括媒体(传统和数字)及人际来源)的信任,以便在构建多成分社区健康干预措施之前权衡利弊。
鉴于数字健康信息获取与传播的近期变化,我们旨在探索当前对健康信息来源的信任及信任的调节因素,以为俄克拉荷马州未来的健康干预措施设计提供参考。
2015年春季,我们对1001名俄克拉荷马州成年人(年龄在18 - 65岁之间)的横断面样本进行了电话调查,以评估对七种媒体来源的信任:传统媒体(电视和广播)、电子媒体(在线和社交媒体)以及人际来源(提供者、保险公司和家人/朋友)。我们还收集了关于已知的信任调节因素(社会人口统计学特征和烟草使用状况)的信息。我们对参与者将某一来源评为“值得信赖”的对数概率进行建模(SAS PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC),并对混杂因素(社会人口统计学特征和烟草使用)进行亚组分析。
俄克拉荷马人对人际来源的信任度最高:81%(808/994)的人表示提供者值得信赖,55%(550/999)的人认为朋友和家人值得信赖,48%(485/998)的人觉得健康保险公司值得信赖。对于媒体来源,24%的参与者(232/989)认为互联网值得信赖,其次是21%的参与者认为电视值得信赖(225/998),18%的参与者认为广播值得信赖(199/988),而只有11%的参与者认为社交媒体值得信赖(110/991)。尽管参与者对社交媒体的自我报告信任度较低,但40%(406/991)的参与者表示使用社交媒体获取与烟草相关的健康信息。对健康提供者的信任在不同亚人群中没有差异,但社会人口统计学变量(性别、收入和教育程度)以及烟草使用状况显著调节了对其他来源的信任。总体而言,女性比男性更易信任他人,对媒体的信任随收入降低,对朋友和家人的信任随教育程度降低。
健康教育干预措施应纳入数字媒体,尤其是在针对低收入人群时。在社交媒体环境中利用医疗保健提供者,可分别发挥提供者的高信任度和社交媒体的低成本特点。