Christopher W. Wheldon<\/b><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n The \u201cclear ideological gradient\u201d researchers observed underscores the need for tailored messaging to ensure evidence-based cancer information reaches diverse audiences, Christopher W. Wheldon, PhD,<\/b> assistant professor of social and behavioral sciences at Temple University\u2019s Barnett College of Public Health, and colleagues concluded.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe patterns we observed likely reflect how people feel about institutions, not whether they care about their own health or whether they trust the scientific process,\u201d Wheldon told Healio. \u201cThose institutions have a responsibility to deliver scientifically and medically accurate information about cancer prevention, screening and care. They may need to frame that information so it resonates with different communities, which may require different communication strategies.\u201d<\/p>\n
Broad potential impacts<\/h2>\n A growing volume of evidence suggests political ideology may be an important determinant of health behaviors.<\/p>\n
COVID-19 pandemic-era debates about public health mandates \u2014 including mask and vaccine requirements \u2014 represent one example.<\/p>\n
A study by Chido-Amajuoyi and colleagues, published in 2023, examined whether political ideology affected trust in public health agencies for cancer information. As Healio previously reported, individuals with more conservative political views had lower levels of trust in cancer information disseminated by these entities than people with more liberal views.<\/p>\n
Whether political polarization in the United States affects public trust in scientific authorities had not been established.<\/p>\n
Wheldon and colleagues conducted a cross-sectional secondary analysis of the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey conducted by NCI that assesses the American public\u2019s knowledge of, attitudes toward and use of information related to cancer and other health topics.<\/p>\n
The survey asked respondents: \u201cIn general, how much would you trust information about cancer from scientists?\u201d<\/p>\n
Researchers classified respondents who selected \u201csome\u201d or \u201ca lot\u201d as having high trust. They classified respondents who selected \u201ca little\u201d or \u201cnot at all\u201d as having low trust.<\/p>\n
Survey respondents also described their current political viewpoint. A 7-point bipolar scale offered a range of \u201cvery liberal\u201d to \u201cvery conservative,\u201d with \u201cmoderate\u201d as a midpoint.<\/p>\n
Researchers used survey-weighted logistic regression models to estimate associations between trust and political ideology.<\/p>\n
More than 7,200 people responded to the survey.<\/p>\n
Investigators included 6,260 (52.1% men) with complete data in their analysis. They controlled for several variables, including age, education and family cancer history.<\/p>\n
A majority of respondents (86%) reported high trust in scientists as sources of cancer information.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe high level of trust overall surprised me,\u201d Wheldon said. \u201cDespite increasing political polarization, most people across the ideological spectrum still reported high trust in scientists for cancer information.\u201d<\/p>\n
Adjusted logistic regression models showed trust varied by political ideology.<\/p>\n
Each 1-point increase on the 7-point scale toward greater conservatism appeared associated with a 25% reduction in odds of reporting high trust (adjusted OR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.83).<\/p>\n
Survey respondents who identified as liberal had a greater estimated probability of reporting high trust than those who identified as very conservative (93.7% vs. 70.5%).<\/p>\n
This finding could have implications that range from adherence to cancer screening guidance to how someone diagnosed with cancer feels about treatment recommendations, Wheldon said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf someone doesn\u2019t trust the messenger \u2014 especially when the information is highly technical \u2014 that can affect decisions at every stage of cancer care, from prevention to treatment,\u201d Wheldon said. \u201cTrust is something we need to take seriously as a factor in cancer outcomes.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u2018Speak to people\u2019s values\u2019<\/h2>\n Researchers acknowledged study limitations, including its cross-sectional design and the fact that single-item measures used to assess trust and political ideology may not capture \u201cthe full complexity or multidimensionality\u201d of these variables. The low survey response rate (27.3%) also could increase potential for nonresponse bias, they wrote.<\/p>\n
The wording of the survey question may have impacted the results, Wheldon said, noting an overwhelming majority of survey respondents (94.2%) reported having high trust in their physicians for cancer information.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat is terrific news, and it makes sense on an interpersonal level because people are likely responding based on their relationship with a specific clinician they know,\u201d Wheldon said. \u201cTrust in scientists is different because not everyone knows a scientist, and people may have different interpretations of what that means.\u201d<\/p>\n
Academic medical institutions and cancer centers could consider promoting the fact that oncologists and other physicians conduct cutting-edge cancer research, helping to \u201cput a face\u201d on the scientific field, Wheldon said.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, effective and respectful communication that emphasizes cooperation, promotes supportive dialogue and avoids \u201chierarchical dynamics\u201d could help build trust that crosses ideological lines, study authors wrote.<\/p>\n
Involving \u201ctrusted messengers\u201d can support that effort, as can recognition that people respond differently to how messaging is framed, Wheldon said.<\/p>\n
He used HPV vaccination recommendations as an example.<\/p>\n
\u201cSome messaging may rely on statistics. They may say the vaccine can prevent \u2018X\u2019 percentage of cervical cancer cases, but not everybody responds to statistics like that,\u201d he said. \u201cSome people may respond more to messages about protecting their family from the real human costs of cancer. The key is framing information in ways that speak to people\u2019s values while remaining scientifically accurate.\u201d<\/p>\n
For more information:<\/h2>\n Christopher W. Wheldon, PhD, <\/b>can be reached at chris.wheldon@temple.edu.<\/p>\n\n
\n
Published by:<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n
<\/p>\n
Ask a clinical question<\/strong> and tap into Healio AI’s knowledge<\/strong> base.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nPubMed, enrolling\/recruiting trials, guidelines<\/li>\n
<\/p>\n
Clinical Guidance, Healio CME, FDA news<\/li>\n
<\/p>\n
Healio’s exclusive daily news coverage of clinical data<\/li>\n
\n <\/ul>\n
Learn more<\/button>\n <\/div>\n<\/div>\n
![\"hemonc](\"https:\/\/www.healio.com\/~\/media\/h5\/feature\/news\/publogos\/hot.svg?la=en&h=24&w=141&hash=2F86D471C8514C0E334E329AA799E8B4\")
\n <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n