Representation Matters: Trust in Digital Health Information Among Black Patients With Prostate Cancer

No AccessJournal of UrologyOriginal Research Articles1 Mar 2024Representation Matters: Trust in Digital Health Information Among Black Patients With Prostate Cancer Stacy Loeb, Tatiana Sanchez Nolasco, Nataliya Byrne, Laura Allen, Aisha T. Langford, Joseph Ravenell, Scarlett Lin Gomez, Samuel L. Washington, Hala T. Borno, Derek M. Griffith, and Nickole Criner Stacy LoebStacy Loeb Corresponding Author: Stacy Loeb, MD, MSc, PhD (hc), New York University Langone Health, 227 E 30th St, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10016 ( ([email protected]) https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3933-9207 , Tatiana Sanchez NolascoTatiana Sanchez Nolasco , Nataliya ByrneNataliya Byrne , Laura AllenLaura Allen , Aisha T. LangfordAisha T. Langford , Joseph RavenellJoseph Ravenell , Scarlett Lin GomezScarlett Lin Gomez , Samuel L. WashingtonSamuel L. Washington , Hala T. BornoHala T. Borno , Derek M. GriffithDerek M. Griffith , and Nickole CrinerNickole Criner View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003822AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: Although the majority of US adults obtain health information on the internet, the quality of information about prostate cancer is highly variable. Black adults are underrepresented in online content about prostate cancer despite a higher incidence of and mortality from the disease. The goal of this study was to explore the perspectives of Black patients with prostate cancer on the importance of racial representation in online content and other factors influencing trust. Materials and Methods: We conducted 7 virtual focus groups with Black patients with prostate cancer in 2022 and 2023. Participants completed an intake questionnaire with demographics followed by a group discussion, including feedback on purposefully selected online content. Transcripts were independently analyzed by 2 investigators experienced in qualitative research using a constant comparative method. Results: Most participants use online sources to look for prostate cancer information. Racial representation is an important factor affecting trust in the content. A lack of Black representation has consequences, including misperceptions about a lower risk of prostate cancer and discouraging further information-seeking. Other key themes affecting trust in online content included the importance of a reputable source of information, professional website structure, and soliciting money. Conclusions: Underrepresentation of Black adults in prostate cancer content has the potential to worsen health disparities. Optimal online communications should include racially diverse representation and evidence-based information in a professional format from reputable sources without financial conflict. REFERENCES 1. . Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur Urol. 2019; 75(4):564-567. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 2. . Instagram and prostate cancer: using validated instruments to assess the quality of information on social media. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022; 25(4):791-793. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 3. . TikTok and prostate cancer: misinformation and quality of information using validated questionnaires. BJU Int. 2021; 128(4):435-437. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 4. . Representation in online prostate cancer content lacks racial and ethnic diversity: implications for Black and Latinx men. J Urol. 2022; 207(3):559-564. Link, Google Scholar 5. . The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: , ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press; 1986:123-205. Google Scholar 6. . Qualitative Methods for Health Research. 3rd ed.Sage; 2014. Google Scholar 7. . Consumer evaluation of the quality of online health information: systematic literature review of relevant criteria and indicators. J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21(5):e12522. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 8. NVivo 11. Run a coding comparison query. Accessed September 20, 2017. http://help-nv11.qsrinternational.com/desktop/procedures/run_a_coding_comparison_query.htm Google Scholar 9. . The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Probl. 1965; 12(4):436-445. Crossref, Google Scholar 10. . Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 3rd ed.Sage; 2013. Google Scholar 11. . Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007; 19(6):349-357. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 12. . The effect of racial concordance on patient trust in online videos about prostate cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(7):e2324395. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 13. . Readability of online health information: a meta-narrative systematic review. Am J Med Qual. 2018; 33(5):487-492. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 14. . Racial disparities and online health information: YouTube and prostate cancer clinical trials. BJU Int. 2020; 126(1):11-13. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 15. . Longitudinal regret after treatment for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Cancer. 2017; 123(21):4252-4258. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 16. . Diversity of enrollment in prostate cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020; 29(7):1374-1380. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 17. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program. National Institutes of Health. Accessed May 28, 2023. https://seer.cancer.gov/explorer/ Google Scholar 18. . Deconstructing, addressing, and eliminating racial and ethnic inequities in prostate cancer care. Eur Urol. 2022; 82(4):341-351. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar Support: This study is supported by US Department of Defense Grant W81XWH2010130 (S.L.). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The Authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Ethics Statement: This study received Institutional Review Board approval (NYU IRB No. 20-00540, UCSF IRB No. 20-32085, and State IRB No. 2022-039). Author Contributions: Conception and design: S.L., T.S.N., A.T.L., J.R., S.G., H.T.B., N.C.; Data analysis and interpretation: S.L., L.A., A.L., J.R., S.G., H.T.B., D.M.G., N.C.; Data acquisition: S.L., T.S.N., N.B., L.A., J.R., S.L.W., H.T.B., N.C.; Critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content: S.L., T.S.N., N.B., L.A., A.L., J.R., S.G., S.L.W., H.T.B.; Drafting the manuscript: S.L., D.M.G.; Statistical analysis: S.L., L.A., H.T.B., N.C.; Supervision: S.L., T.S.N., J.R., S.L.W., D.M.G., N.C. Data Availability: Data will be available for health/medical/biomedical research purposes. Interested investigators are required to submit a formal letter of intent outlining research aims, rationale, and approach. Documentation of local IRB approval, including a description of type of review, should be submitted with the data request. © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited bySiemens D and Wan J (2024) Editors' ChoiceJournal of Urology, VOL. 211, NO. 3, (339-340), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2024. Volume 211Issue 3March 2024Page: 376-383Supplementary Materials Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordsqualitativeprostate cancerinternetcommunicationsrepresentationMetrics Author Information Stacy Loeb Corresponding Author: Stacy Loeb, MD, MSc, PhD (hc), New York University Langone Health, 227 E 30th St, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10016 ( ([email protected]) More articles by this author Tatiana Sanchez Nolasco More articles by this author Nataliya Byrne More articles by this author Laura Allen More articles by this author Aisha T. Langford More articles by this author Joseph Ravenell More articles by this author Scarlett Lin Gomez More articles by this author Samuel L. Washington More articles by this author Hala T. Borno More articles by this author Derek M. Griffith More articles by this author Nickole Criner More articles by this author Expand All Support: This study is supported by US Department of Defense Grant W81XWH2010130 (S.L.). Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The Authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. Ethics Statement: This study received Institutional Review Board approval (NYU IRB No. 20-00540, UCSF IRB No. 20-32085, and State IRB No. 2022-039). Author Contributions: Conception and design: S.L., T.S.N., A.T.L., J.R., S.G., H.T.B., N.C.; Data analysis and interpretation: S.L., L.A., A.L., J.R., S.G., H.T.B., D.M.G., N.C.; Data acquisition: S.L., T.S.N., N.B., L.A., J.R., S.L.W., H.T.B., N.C.; Critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content: S.L., T.S.N., N.B., L.A., A.L., J.R., S.G., S.L.W., H.T.B.; Drafting the manuscript: S.L., D.M.G.; Statistical analysis: S.L., L.A., H.T.B., N.C.; Supervision: S.L., T.S.N., J.R., S.L.W., D.M.G., N.C. Data Availability: Data will be available for health/medical/biomedical research purposes. Interested investigators are required to submit a formal letter of intent outlining research aims, rationale, and approach. Documentation of local IRB approval, including a description of type of review, should be submitted with the data request. Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...