Elaine C Khoong1, Gem M Le2,3, Mekhala Hoskote2,3, Natalie A Rivadeneira2,3, Robert A Hiatt4,5, Urmimala Sarkar2,3. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine. 3. Center for Vulnerable Populations, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, University of California San Francisco. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 5. UCSF Hellen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In order to address health disparities, it is important to understand how vulnerable individuals seek information. This study used an adapted version of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) administered in English, Spanish, and Chinese to describe the behaviors and preferences of a diverse group of vulnerable urban residents. METHODS: We administered a modified HINTS survey in English, Spanish, and Chinese and used purposive sampling to ensure 50% were non-English speakers evenly divided between Spanish and Chinese speakers, and 50% of English-speakers identified as Black. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with sources used for health information and preferences for delivery of health information. RESULTS: Among 1027survey respondents (514 English, 256 Spanish, 260 Chinese), 55% had adequate health literacy, and 50% reported household income <$20,000, but 77% reported owning a smartphone. A plurality sought health information on the Internet (39%) or from a health care provider (36%). In multivariable analyses, smartphone ownership predicted higher odds of seeking health information on the Internet [odds ratio, (OR) 2.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.81-4.91]. Participants most preferred email (41%) and brochures (40%) for delivery of health information, but non-English survey respondents were less likely to prefer email: Spanish (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.83) and Chinese (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71). Smartphone ownership predicted an email preference (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.43-3.36). CONCLUSIONS: Among vulnerable populations, smartphone ownership and language preferences impact preferences for seeking and receiving health information. These preferences need to be considered in designing health messages.
INTRODUCTION: In order to address health disparities, it is important to understand how vulnerable individuals seek information. This study used an adapted version of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) administered in English, Spanish, and Chinese to describe the behaviors and preferences of a diverse group of vulnerable urban residents. METHODS: We administered a modified HINTS survey in English, Spanish, and Chinese and used purposive sampling to ensure 50% were non-English speakers evenly divided between Spanish and Chinese speakers, and 50% of English-speakers identified as Black. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with sources used for health information and preferences for delivery of health information. RESULTS: Among 1027survey respondents (514 English, 256 Spanish, 260 Chinese), 55% had adequate health literacy, and 50% reported household income <$20,000, but 77% reported owning a smartphone. A plurality sought health information on the Internet (39%) or from a health care provider (36%). In multivariable analyses, smartphone ownership predicted higher odds of seeking health information on the Internet [odds ratio, (OR) 2.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.81-4.91]. Participants most preferred email (41%) and brochures (40%) for delivery of health information, but non-English survey respondents were less likely to prefer email: Spanish (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11-0.83) and Chinese (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.09-0.71). Smartphone ownership predicted an email preference (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.43-3.36). CONCLUSIONS: Among vulnerable populations, smartphone ownership and language preferences impact preferences for seeking and receiving health information. These preferences need to be considered in designing health messages.
Authors: Adam Schickedanz; David Huang; Andrea Lopez; Edna Cheung; C R Lyles; Tom Bodenheimer; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Leah S Karliner; Anna M Napoles-Springer; Dean Schillinger; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anjali Gopalan; Pranita Mishra; Stacey E Alexeeff; Maruta A Blatchins; Eileen Kim; Alan Man; Andrew J Karter; Richard W Grant Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elaine C Khoong; Blythe A Butler; Omar Mesina; George Su; Triveni B DeFries; Malini Nijagal; Courtney R Lyles Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joy L Lee; Susan M Rawl; Stephanie Dickinson; Evgenia Teal; Layla B Baker; Chen Lyu; Will L Tarver; David A Haggstrom Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Natalie A Rivadeneira; Mekhala Hoskote; Gem M Le; Tung T Nguyen; Anna María Nápoles; Rena J Pasick; Urmimala Sarkar; Robert A Hiatt Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Hannah Shucard; Emily Muller; Joslyn Johnson; Jan Walker; Joann G Elmore; Thomas H Payne; Jacob Berman; Sara L Jackson Journal: Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol Date: 2022-02-17
Authors: Eduardo J Santiago-Rodríguez; Natalie A Rivadeneira; Jacqueline M Torres; Urmimala Sarkar; Robert A Hiatt Journal: Ethn Health Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Helly Goez; Ella M E Forgie; Hollis Lai; Bo Cao; Eleni Stroulia; Andrew J Greenshaw Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 5.428