Barbara K. Rimer

"Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice, Fifth Edition, is a thorough introduction to the practice of health education and health promotion, covering the theories, applications, and research of most use to public health students and practitioners. Through four editions, with more than 100,000 copies sold, this book has become the gold-standard textbook for health behavior courses. This essential resource includes the most current information on theory, research, and practice at individual, interpersonal, and community and group levels, with substantial new content on current and emerging theories of health communication, social marketing and e-health, culturally diverse communities, health promotion, the impact of stress, the importance of networks and community, social marketing, and evaluation. New contents include an update to the selection of theories, both established and emerging; e-health and social media as integrated into health communication; global health as an application of health behavior theory; culture and health disparities; more guidance on how to select suitable theories for specific problems/issues. In addition to a selection of basic ancillary materials, the editors offer a dedicated website with student-written "theory in action" examples; expanded bibliographies; exemplar measures of theoretical constructs; and relevant links"--

BACKGROUND: The context in which patients consume health information has changed dramatically with diffusion of the Internet, advances in telemedicine, and changes in media health coverage. The objective of this study was to provide nationally representative estimates for health-related uses of the Internet, level of trust in health information sources, and preferences for cancer information sources. METHODS: Data from the Health Information National Trends Survey were used. A total of 6369 persons 18 years or older were studied. The main outcome measures were online health activities, levels of trust, and source preference. RESULTS: Analyses indicated that 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61.7%-64.3%) of the US adult population in 2003 reported ever going online, with 63.7% (95% CI, 61.7%-65.8%) of the online population having looked for health information for themselves or others at least once in the previous 12 months. Despite newly available communication channels, physicians remained the most highly trusted information source to patients, with 62.4% (95% CI, 60.8%-64.0%) of adults expressing a lot of trust in their physicians. When asked where they preferred going for specific health information, 49.5% (95% CI, 48.1%-50.8%) reported wanting to go to their physicians first. When asked where they actually went, 48.6% (95% CI, 46.1%-51.0%) reported going online first, with only 10.9% (95% CI, 9.5%-12.3%) going to their physicians first. CONCLUSION: The Health Information National Trends Survey data portray a tectonic shift in the ways in which patients consume health and medical information, with more patients looking for information online before talking with their physicians.

BACKGROUND: Numeracy, how facile people are with basic probability and mathematical concepts, is associated with how people perceive health risks. Performance on simple numeracy problems has been poor among populations with little as well as more formal education. Here, we examine how highly educated participants performed on a general and an expanded numeracy scale. The latter was designed within the context of health risks. METHOD: A total of 463 men and women aged 40 and older completed a 3-item general and an expanded 7-item numeracy scale. The expanded scale assessed how well people 1) differentiate and perform simple mathematical operations on risk magnitudes using percentages and proportions, 2) convert percentages to proportions, 3) convert proportions to percentages, and 4) convert probabilities to proportions. RESULTS: On average, 18% and 32% of participants correctly answered all of the general and expanded numeracy scale items, respectively. Approximately 16% to 20% incorrectly answered the most straightforward questions pertaining to risk magnitudes (e.g., Which represents the larger risk: 1%, 5%, or 10%?). A factor analysis revealed that the general and expanded risk numeracy items tapped the construct of global numeracy. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that even highly educated participants have difficulty with relatively simple numeracy questions, thus replicating in part earlier studies. The implication is that usual strategies for communicating numerical risk may be flawed. Methods and consequences of communicating health risk information tailored to a person's level of numeracy should be explored further.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 30 years, eight major randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening--with mammography and/or clinical breast examination--have been conducted. Results from several trials have been updated during the past year, and initial results of three other trials have been reported. PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute held an International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer in February 1993 to conduct a thorough and objective critical review of the world's most recent clinical trial data on breast cancer screening, consider the new evidence, assess the current state of knowledge, and identify issues needing further research. METHODS: Investigators representing the eight randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening in women aged 40-74 presented published and unpublished data. Evidence relating to the effectiveness of breast cancer screening in different age groups, especially women aged 40-49, was presented. RESULTS: For women aged 40-49, randomized controlled trials consistently demonstrated no benefit from screening in the first 5-7 years after study entry. A meta-analysis of six trials found a relative risk of 1.08 (95% confidence interval = 0.85-1.39) after 7 years' follow-up. After 10-12 years of follow-up, none of four trials have found a statistically significant benefit in mortality; a combined analysis of Swedish studies showed a statistically insignificant 13% decrease in mortality at 12 years. Only one trial (Health Insurance Plan) has data beyond 12 years of follow-up, and results show a 25% decrease in mortality at 10-18 years. Statistical significance of this result is disputed, however. In women aged 50-69, all studies show mortality reductions; three of four studies show reductions of about 30% at 10-12 years after study entry. Results from two of these trials were statistically significant. Too few women over age 70 have been included in studies for adequate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For women aged 40-49, randomized controlled trials of breast cancer screening show no benefit 5-7 years after entry. At 10-12 years, benefit is uncertain and, if present, marginal; thereafter, it is unknown. For women aged 50-69, screening reduces breast cancer mortality by about a third. Currently available data for women age 70 or older are inadequate to judge the effectiveness of screening. IMPLICATIONS: Randomized trials have provided stronger scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of screening for breast cancer than for any other cancer. However, much still needs to be learned. Periodic gatherings of scientists in the field should speed the process.