Jeff Niederdeppe’s research while affiliated with Cornell University and other places

Researchers studying the influence of strategic science messages have overlooked the fact that people are selective in the content they consume. In this experiment, participants were “forced” to view one of three climate appeals (threat, humor, informational), reflecting the typical between-subjects experiment, or they were permitted to choose between one of these appeals (or topical alternatives), reflecting real-world media choice. Compared with forced exposure, choice exposure resulted in slightly less reactance and slightly greater enjoyment, appreciation, and persuasion outcomes—even after accounting for self-selection biases. These findings underscore the value of treating research participants as selective consumers of science content.

Background Colorectal cancer screening can reduce colorectal cancer risk, yet many men are not up to date with screening guidelines. Although previous qualitative studies have suggested links among anti-gay prejudice, traditional masculine self-concept, racial identity, and colorectal cancer screening among men, scholars have yet to fully explore these associations using quantitative data. This study used a nationally representative sample of Black and White men in the United States to test these associations and examine the sociodemographic correlates. Methods Using the National Opinion Research Center (NORC)/AmeriSpeak probability-based panel, we recruited a sample of Black and White men in the United States ages 45 to 74 years who had never been diagnosed with colorectal cancer (N = 909). Participants completed an online questionnaire measuring anti-gay prejudice, traditional masculine self-concept, sociodemographic variables, and screening-related outcomes (awareness of screening test options, screening intention, and adherence to screening recommendations). Results Black participants reported higher levels of anti-gay prejudice and traditional masculine self-concept than White participants. Anti-gay prejudice was associated with lower awareness and lower screening intention. Black participants reported higher intention to follow screening recommendations but not higher odds of actual adherence than White participants. Conclusions Men with anti-gay prejudice are less likely to be aware of colorectal cancer screening test options and less likely to intend to engage in colorectal cancer screening. The results have implications for the design and development of future interventions aimed at increasing colorectal cancer screening rates. Impact Future studies could develop targeted interventions and observe subsequent changes or conduct longitudinal studies to further explore the role of anti-gay prejudice in colorectal cancer screening.

Background Racial inequity in health outcomes, particularly in colorectal cancer (CRC), remains one of the most pressing issues in cancer communication and public health. Social media platforms like Twitter (now X) provide opportunities to disseminate health equity information widely, yet little is known about the availability, content, and reach of racial health equity information related to CRC on these platforms. Addressing this gap is essential to leveraging social media for equitable health communication. Objective This study aims to analyze the volume, content, and exposure of CRC racial health equity tweets from identified CRC equity disseminator accounts on Twitter. These accounts were defined as those actively sharing information related to racial equity in CRC outcomes. By examining the behavior and impact of these disseminators, this study provides insights into how health equity content is shared and received on social media. Methods We identified accounts that posted CRC-related content on Twitter between 2019 and 2021. Accounts were classified as CRC equity disseminators (n=798) if they followed at least 2 CRC racial equity organization accounts. We analyzed the volume and content of racial equity–related CRC tweets (n=1134) from these accounts and categorized them by account type (experts vs nonexperts). Additionally, we evaluated exposure by analyzing follower reach (n=6,266,269) and the role of broker accounts—accounts serving as unique sources of CRC racial equity information to their followers. Results Among 19,559 tweets posted by 798 CRC equity disseminators, only 5.8% (n=1134) mentioned racially and ethnically minoritized groups. Most of these tweets (641/1134, 57%) addressed disparities in outcomes, while fewer emphasized actionable content, such as symptoms (11/1134, 1%) or screening procedures (159/1134, 14%). Expert accounts (n=479; 716 tweets) were more likely to post CRC equity tweets compared with nonexpert accounts (n=319; 418 tweets). Broker accounts (n=500), or those with a substantial portion of followers relying on them for equity-related information, demonstrated the highest capacity for exposing followers to CRC equity content, thereby extending the reach of these critical messages to underserved communities. Conclusions This study emphasizes the critical roles played by expert and broker accounts in disseminating CRC racial equity information on social media. Despite the limited volume of equity-focused content, broker accounts were crucial in reaching otherwise unexposed audiences. Public health practitioners should focus on encouraging equity disseminators to share more actionable information, such as symptoms and screening benefits, and implement measures to amplify the reach of such content on social media. Strengthening these efforts could help bridge disparities in cancer outcomes among racially minoritized groups.

Researchers have raised concerns that messages describing racial disparities in social outcomes can reduce or polarize support for public policies to address inequality. We questioned this assumption by testing the impact of carefully crafted messages about Child Tax Credit (CTC) expansion. We conducted two randomized message trials, Study 1 using Prolific’s non-probability panel (n = 1,402) and Study 2 using SSRS’s Opinion Panel, a web-based probability sample of US adults (n = 4,483). Each study included comparably sized subsamples of Black, Hispanic, and White respondents from across the political spectrum. Study 1 compared six candidate messages to a control message and identified promising message strategies for replication. Study 2 compared two messages advocating for CTC expansion—one emphasizing policy benefits to all children (universalist) and the other describing benefits to all but even greater benefits to Black and Hispanic children (targeted universalist)—to a control message simply describing the policy. Primary outcomes were policy support and policy advocacy intentions. Study 2 tested pre-registered hypotheses and conducted additional exploratory analyses using linear models. Both treatment messages produced greater policy support and advocacy intentions than the control message among Black and Hispanic respondents (Cohen’s d 0.12 to 0.28). The universalist message also produced greater policy support than the control message among White respondents (Cohen’s d = 0.16). The targeted universalist message did not reduce policy support or advocacy intentions among White and Republican respondents. Well-designed messages emphasizing policy efficacy can promote support for a redistributive tax policy across racial, ethnic, and political identities.

Background Canada has become the first country in the world to require warnings to be displayed on cigarette sticks. Tobacco companies were given a transition period, from 30 April to 31 July 2024 to ensure that all king size cigarettes sold in the country included warnings on the filter of each cigarette stick. Warnings on the filter of regular size cigarettes will be implemented from April 2025. Methods We used an online panel provider to recruit an open cohort of adults in Canada who smoked factory-made or roll-your-own cigarettes. Seven waves of data were collected at 3-month intervals between February 2023 to August 2024, with 10 521 observations across 4310 participants. Participants were asked about support for the inclusion of warnings on cigarette filters, accompanied by an image of one of the six prescribed warnings (eg, ‘Cigarettes damage your organs’). Smoking behaviours and sociodemographic characteristics were also queried. Results Generalised estimated equations were used to estimate support at each wave. At W1 (February 2023, prior to the policy announcement), 25% of participants reported supporting printed health messages on cigarette sticks, significantly increasing to 27% by W7 (August 2024, at the end of the implementation transition period). Participants were more likely to support the policy if they used other nicotine/tobacco products, roll-your-own cigarettes, had a recent quit attempt, intended to quit, or had higher risk perception of smoking harms, and less likely if they were older, female, white or reported greater reactance to warnings on cigarette packs. Conclusion Just as increased support has been found for a range of tobacco control policies post-implementation, we found increased support for warnings on cigarettes during the transition period. However, support for this policy among people who smoke remains low. Other countries considering implementing this policy may consider these findings.

Development and amplification of effective, culturally resonant, trustworthy, and evidence-based public health communication are urgently needed. Research evidence, theory, and practical experience from within and beyond the interdisciplinary field of health communication are well-positioned to help public health authorities, researchers, and advocates navigate the complex societal challenges that influence health and well-being in global contexts. This review offers a broad overview of the field, considers what constitutes “effectiveness” versus “effects” in public health communication, and describes core concepts of public health communication as a process rather than a product. We review domains and dominant foci of public health communication research, articulate challenges for health communication to advance health and social equity and address mis-/disinformation, and offer practical guidance on message development, audience segmentation, multilevel intervention, and evaluation of communication programs. We conclude by identifying important questions for future public health communication research, interventions, and funding.

BACKGROUND Racial inequity in health outcomes, particularly in colorectal cancer (CRC), remains one of the most pressing issues in cancer communication and public health. Social media platforms like Twitter (now X) provide opportunities to disseminate health equity information widely, yet little is known about the availability, content, and reach of racial health equity information related to CRC on these platforms. Addressing this gap is essential to leveraging social media for equitable health communication. OBJECTIVE This study aims to analyze the volume, content, and exposure of CRC racial health equity tweets from identified CRC equity disseminator accounts on Twitter. These accounts were defined as those actively sharing information related to racial equity in CRC outcomes. By examining the behavior and impact of these disseminators, this study provides insights into how health equity content is shared and received on social media. METHODS We identified accounts that posted CRC-related content on Twitter between 2019 and 2021. Accounts were classified as CRC equity disseminators (n=798) if they followed at least 2 CRC racial equity organization accounts. We analyzed the volume and content of racial equity–related CRC tweets (n=1134) from these accounts and categorized them by account type (experts vs nonexperts). Additionally, we evaluated exposure by analyzing follower reach (n=6,266,269) and the role of broker accounts—accounts serving as unique sources of CRC racial equity information to their followers. RESULTS Among 19,559 tweets posted by 798 CRC equity disseminators, only 5.8% (n=1134) mentioned racially and ethnically minoritized groups. Most of these tweets (641/1134, 57%) addressed disparities in outcomes, while fewer emphasized actionable content, such as symptoms (11/1134, 1%) or screening procedures (159/1134, 14%). Expert accounts (n=479; 716 tweets) were more likely to post CRC equity tweets compared with nonexpert accounts (n=319; 418 tweets). Broker accounts (n=500), or those with a substantial portion of followers relying on them for equity-related information, demonstrated the highest capacity for exposing followers to CRC equity content, thereby extending the reach of these critical messages to underserved communities. CONCLUSIONS This study emphasizes the critical roles played by expert and broker accounts in disseminating CRC racial equity information on social media. Despite the limited volume of equity-focused content, broker accounts were crucial in reaching otherwise unexposed audiences. Public health practitioners should focus on encouraging equity disseminators to share more actionable information, such as symptoms and screening benefits, and implement measures to amplify the reach of such content on social media. Strengthening these efforts could help bridge disparities in cancer outcomes among racially minoritized groups.

INTRODUCTION Cigarette package inserts that describe quitting benefits and tips may promote cessation; however, research is needed to understand better their effects, including potentially enhancing the effects of pictorial health warning labels (PHWLs). METHODS A randomized trial with a 2×2 factorial design was conducted with adult smokers (n=356) assigned to either small text-only health warning labels (HWLs; control); inserts with cessation messages, and the small text-only HWLs (inserts-only); large PHWLs (PHWLs-only); both inserts and PHWLs (inserts + PHWLs). Participants received a 14-day supply of their preferred cigarettes with packs labeled to reflect their group. Upon finishing the trial, participants reported their past 14-day frequency of noticing, reading, thinking about smoking harms and cessation benefits, talking about labels, and forgoing cigarettes because of the labels. Ordered logistic models regressed these outcomes on labeling groups, and mediation analyses assessed whether attention (i.e. noticing, reading) to labels mediated effects of labeling exposure on other outcomes (i.e. thinking about harms/benefits, talking, forgoing). RESULTS The inserts + PHWLs group reported higher frequencies than the control group for all outcomes. Compared to the control group, both the inserts-only and PHWLs-only groups reported higher frequency of noticing (AOR=3.53 and 2.46, respectively) and reading labels (AOR=2.89 and 1.71), thinking about smoking risks because of the labels (AOR=1.93 and 1.82), and talking about labels (AOR=2.30 and 2.70). Participants in the inserts-only group also reported more frequent thinking about quitting benefits (AOR=1.98). Attention mediated all labeling effects except for the contrast between PHWLs only and control. CONCLUSIONS Compared to text-only HWLS, cigarette labeling that involves inserts, PHWLs, or both appears more effective at drawing attention to warnings, which mediated the effects on cessation-related psychosocial and behavioral outcomes.