Data resource basics
The National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) was conceived in 1997 during a multidisciplinary conference focused on risk communication with attenders representing the fields of psychology, health behaviour and education, public health, clinical medicine and health journalism. The key recommendation born of this conference encouraged NCI to develop a communication-specific population survey to track trends in US adults' access to, need for and use of health and cancer information. Heeding the call for development of a national communication survey, NCI developed a nationally representative survey to assess trends in cancer-related communication, health information-seeking and cancer-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.
HINTS is a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of the US non-institutionalized adult population (aged 18 years and older) which collects data on health-related information and health-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviour.1,2 HINTS was first fielded in 2002–032 and the general population survey has been administered five times over a 15-year period, with HINTS 4 and 5 including multiple annual cross-sectional data collection cycles. The resulting data (n = 37 365) can be tracked for trends over time or, if there are no trends anticipated a priori, can be aggregated into a larger sample for further analysis. Table 1 summarizes survey design and implementation details for each completed survey administration, including survey field period, survey mode, total sample size, response rate, and number of cancer patients and survivors.
Table 1.
Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) survey design and implementation characteristics (2003–17)
| HINTS 1 | HINTS 2 | HINTS 3 | HINTS 4 |
HINTS 5 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cycle 1 | Cycle 2 | Cycle 3 | Cycle 4 | Cycle 1 | ||||
| Field period initiated | 2002 | 2005 | 2008 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2017 |
| Mode | RDD | RDD | Mail & RDD | |||||
| Total no. of respondents | 6369 | 5586 | Mail: 3582 RDD: 4092 | 3959 | 3630 | 3185 | 3677 | 3285 |
| Response rate | 33.0% | 24.0% | Mail: 40.0% RDD: 24.2% | 36.7% | 40.0% | 35.2% | 34.4% | 32.4% |
| No. cancer patients/survivors | 763 | 873 | 1001 | 563 | 464 | 459 | 542 | 504 |
Data collected
HINTS 1 was administered in 2002–03 as a random digit dial (RDD) computer-assisted telephone interview to a representative sample of US households drawn from all telephone exchanges in the US. One adult aged 18 years or older within each household was selected for the extended interview during a household screening. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, depending on respondent preference. Further details about the sample and sampling design are published elsewhere.2
HINTS 2 was administered in 2005 as an RDD computer-assisted telephone interview to a representative sample of U.S. households drawn from all telephone exchanges in the U.S. One adult from each household was selected for interview, which was conducted in English or Spanish according to respondent preference. Further details about sampling design are published elsewhere.3
HINTS 3 was fielded in 2008 using a mixed-mode, dual-frame design. One sample frame was a list-assisted RDD computer-assisted telephone interview, wherein one adult from each household was selected for an interview. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, depending on respondent preference. The second sample frame was a comprehensive national listing of addresses available from the United States Postal Service. These households were administered a mailed survey. In the mail sample, all adults in the household at each sampled address were asked to complete a questionnaire. Thus, the mail sample was a stratified cluster sample, in which the household was the cluster. Further details on the HINTS 3 survey design and operations are published elsewhere.4
The HINTS 4 administration included four cross-sectional mail-mode data collection cycles over 4 years starting in 2011 and concluding in 2014 (Table 1). HINTS 4 Cycles 1–4 were administered as mailed questionnaires using a sampling frame of addresses provided by Marketing Systems Group (MSG). The protocol for mailing the questionnaires involved an initial mailing of the questionnaire, followed by a reminder postcard, and up to two additional mailings of the questionnaire as needed for non-responding households. Most households received one survey per mailing (in English), whereas households that were potentially Spanish-speaking received two surveys per mailing (one in English and one in Spanish). In the second stage of sampling, one adult from each sampled household was selected for participation. Further details on the survey design and operations for the HINTS 4 data collection cycles have been previously described.5–8
HINTS 5 includes four cross-sectional data collection cycles over 4 years, starting in 2017 and scheduled to end in 2020. The first of the HINTS 5 data collection cycles (HINTS 5, Cycle 1) was conducted in 2017. HINTS 5, Cycle 1 was administered as a single-mode mailed survey using a sampling frame of addresses provided by MSG, following the same protocol as HINTS 4. Further details on the HINTS 5, Cycle 1 data collection have been previously published.9
Three additional topic-specific HINTS modules, not described in this data resource profile, were fielded in 2009 (HINTS Puerto Rico), 2015 (HINTS-FDA Cycle 1) and 2017 (HINTS-FDA Cycle 2).
Data quality
To ensure data quality before data collection, each HINTS administration has included cognitive testing for each HINTS instrument, with testing particularly focused on new questions. The goal of cognitive testing is to provide valid measures of the constructs of interest with a minimum of response error.10–12 Testing was conducted on both paper and RDD surveys.
After data collection, data quality efforts for the RDD surveys include direct data entry. The computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) program ensures that proper skip patterns are followed and constrains data entry to valid values for each survey item. The CATI program also allows for range and edit checks on the entry of numerical responses to questions such as age, length of time since last search for health information, servings of fruits or vegetables consumed daily, height and weight and other numerical response questions.
For mailed surveys, post-data collection quality control checks are conducted on the scanned data and electronic images of the survey. Quality assurance staff compare the hard-copy questionnaire with the data captured in the database item-for-item and the images stored in the repository page-for-page, to ensure that all items are correctly captured. Scanned data are validated according to HINTS specifications. Violations of validation rules (such as marking more than one choice box in a mark-only-one question) are flagged and reviewed. Additionally, quality assurance staff closely review frequencies and cross tabulations of the HINTS raw data to identify outliers and to verify open-ended items.
Survey constructs and measures
Each HINTS administration includes a core set of items. Table 2 summarizes the key constructs represented in the survey core of HINTS and describes the nature of the associated survey items. Core constructs include health information-seeking, cancer prevention and screening, cancer-related knowledge and behaviour; cancer risk perceptions; health care use and access; and technology utilization and access. Additional constructs or items have been included in specific HINTS administrations to capture timely or emerging phenomena or to glean greater detail on core constructs. Table 3 summarizes the sociodemographic characteristics of the total sample and weighted estimates for each of the survey administrations. Estimates are weighted to correct for non-response bias and to be representative of the US population; population distributions therefore reflect those of the US population with regard to age, sex, race and ethnicity.
Table 2.
Core constructs measured in the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS)
| Construct | Measures |
|---|---|
| Sociodemographics | Age, sex, race, ethnicity, income, home ownership status, financial strain, health insurance coverage, education, marital status, employment status, country of origin (US vs other), health status, cancer history |
| Health information-seeking | Ever sought health information, health information sources, trust in health information sources, confidence in health information-seeking, information-seeking experiences, internet use for health information |
| Cancer prevention and screening knowledge and behaviour | Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening, HPV vaccination |
| Cancer-related behaviour | Tobacco use, sun safety, physical activity, diet |
| Cancer risk perceptions | Confusion, fatalism, health beliefs, perceived risk of developing cancer |
| Health care use and access | Usual source of care, cost barrier to care, patient-provider communication |
| Technology use and access | Internet access through dial-up, broadband, cellular network, wireless network; use of internet for health-related reasons; ownership of tablet computers, smartphones, basic cellphones; use of health-related apps; use of social media for health-related reasons |
Table 3.
Sample size and weighted estimates for HINTS respondents by sociodemographic characteristics
| HINTS 1 | HINTS 2 | HINTS 3 | HINTS 4 |
HINTS 5 | Combined | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
2005 |
2008 |
Cycle 1 (2011) |
Cycle 2 (2012) |
Cycle 3 (2013) |
Cycle 4 (2014) |
Cycle 1 (2017) |
Total |
||||||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| Total | 6369 | 11.4 | 5586 | 11.7 | 7674 | 12.2 | 3959 | 12.7 | 3630 | 12.9 | 3185 | 12.7 | 3677 | 12.9 | 3285 | 13.4 | 37 365 | 100.0 |
| Sex | ||||||||||||||||||
| Female | 3848 | 51.9 | 3657 | 51.9 | 4696 | 51.4 | 2304 | 51.5 | 2172 | 51.4 | 1906 | 51.6 | 2184 | 51.7 | 1914 | 51.1 | 22 681 | 51.6 |
| Male | 2521 | 48.1 | 1929 | 48.1 | 2969 | 48.6 | 1552 | 48.5 | 1390 | 48.6 | 1197 | 48.4 | 1424 | 48.3 | 1303 | 48.9 | 14 285 | 48.4 |
| Age | ||||||||||||||||||
| 18-34 | 1656 | 31.2 | 1037 | 31.0 | 1113 | 30.8 | 582 | 30.3 | 529 | 30.5 | 426 | 27.2 | 467 | 30.8 | 367 | 21.9 | 6177 | 29.1 |
| 35-49 | 1961 | 31.1 | 1494 | 30.1 | 1831 | 29.6 | 932 | 27.3 | 845 | 26.4 | 712 | 30.5 | 743 | 26.7 | 655 | 28.7 | 9173 | 28.8 |
| 50-64 | 1492 | 21.5 | 1522 | 22.8 | 2451 | 23.1 | 1339 | 25.2 | 1168 | 25.6 | 1070 | 25.1 | 1220 | 25.1 | 1063 | 30.1 | 11 325 | 24.9 |
| 65-74 | 694 | 9.7 | 812 | 9.3 | 1189 | 8.4 | 583 | 9.2 | 555 | 9.4 | 514 | 9.4 | 637 | 9.6 | 676 | 11.1 | 5660 | 9.5 |
| >=75 | 548 | 6.6 | 707 | 6.7 | 1010 | 8.1 | 455 | 8.0 | 414 | 8.0 | 360 | 7.9 | 428 | 7.9 | 385 | 8.2 | 4307 | 7.7 |
| Race/ethnicity | ||||||||||||||||||
| Hispanic | 764 | 11.7 | 496 | 13.0 | 622 | 12.8 | 461 | 14.5 | 511 | 15.0 | 511 | 15.4 | 540 | 15.1 | 427 | 15.7 | 4332 | 14.2 |
| NH White | 4276 | 71.8 | 4103 | 69.9 | 5445 | 69.3 | 2431 | 66.8 | 2043 | 67.1 | 1584 | 66.9 | 1960 | 66.6 | 1868 | 65.7 | 23 710 | 67.9 |
| NH Black | 716 | 10.5 | 438 | 10.0 | 687 | 11.5 | 576 | 11.4 | 496 | 10.9 | 421 | 10.5 | 534 | 11.3 | 409 | 10.3 | 4277 | 10.8 |
| NH Other | 312 | 6.0 | 299 | 7.1 | 424 | 6.4 | 271 | 7.4 | 208 | 7.1 | 209 | 7.2 | 239 | 6.9 | 249 | 8.3 | 2211 | 7.1 |
| Education | ||||||||||||||||||
| Less than high school | 747 | 16.9 | 687 | 14.5 | 683 | 13.9 | 391 | 12.8 | 329 | 13.5 | 297 | 9.7 | 308 | 11.6 | 217 | 8.7 | 3659 | 12.6 |
| High school graduate | 1828 | 32.0 | 1447 | 29.9 | 1804 | 26.6 | 785 | 23.1 | 775 | 20.3 | 699 | 24.4 | 670 | 18.2 | 616 | 22.9 | 8624 | 24.5 |
| Some college | 1637 | 26.8 | 1545 | 32.2 | 2192 | 34.8 | 1167 | 31.1 | 1057 | 37.6 | 933 | 32.7 | 1090 | 30.0 | 942 | 32.8 | 10 563 | 32.3 |
| College graduate | 1927 | 24.3 | 1696 | 23.5 | 2637 | 24.7 | 1531 | 32.9 | 1380 | 28.6 | 1167 | 33.2 | 1458 | 40.1 | 1406 | 35.6 | 13 202 | 30.6 |
| Income | ||||||||||||||||||
| <$20, 000 | 1 111 | 19.2 | 899 | 17.7 | 1142 | 19.8 | 829 | 24.3 | 740 | 21.9 | 680 | 20.2 | 774 | 19.4 | 559 | 17.4 | 6734 | 20.0 |
| $20, 000 to <$35, 000 | 1295 | 22.5 | 868 | 17.7 | 1056 | 16.7 | 584 | 17.2 | 501 | 14.9 | 418 | 14.5 | 489 | 12.7 | 423 | 12.2 | 5634 | 15.9 |
| $35, 000 to <$50, 000 | 958 | 17.6 | 652 | 14.2 | 873 | 14.0 | 520 | 12.6 | 459 | 15.5 | 394 | 14.7 | 482 | 14.8 | 386 | 14.9 | 4724 | 14.7 |
| $50, 000 to <$75, 000 | 955 | 17.7 | 924 | 22.0 | 1203 | 19.1 | 594 | 16.9 | 524 | 16.8 | 446 | 17.7 | 550 | 17.2 | 530 | 19.1 | 5726 | 18.2 |
| $75, 000+ | 1214 | 23.1 | 1150 | 28.4 | 2041 | 30.4 | 1031 | 29.0 | 926 | 31.0 | 801 | 33.0 | 979 | 35.9 | 1064 | 36.3 | 9206 | 31.1 |
| Metro/non-metro county | ||||||||||||||||||
| Metro | 5174 | 80.9 | 4352 | 80.0 | 6192 | 82.2 | 3321 | 84.2 | 3087 | 83.7 | 2709 | 82.1 | 3157 | 83.6 | 2812 | 84.4 | 30 804 | 82.7 |
| Non-metro | 1195 | 19.1 | 1234 | 20.0 | 1482 | 17.8 | 638 | 15.8 | 543 | 16.3 | 476 | 17.9 | 520 | 16.4 | 473 | 15.6 | 6561 | 17.3 |
Regulatory and ethical considerations
Each HINTS administration has been approved through expedited review by the Westat Institutional Review Board, and subsequently deemed exempt by the U.S. National Institutes of Health Office of Human Subjects Research Protections.
Data resource use
HINTS data are used by researchers to explore use of different communication channels to obtain health information among the US adult population; these data are also used to assess public knowledge and attitudes about health-relevant topics. HINTS data are used by programme planners to identify health information and communication facilitators and barriers within and across populations, and to inform the development of effective health communication strategies. Social scientists use HINTS data to test and refine their theories of health communication in the information age and to guide recommendations for theory-driven interventions aimed at improving population health.
HINTS data have been used to pursue a wide variety of research questions. To date, there have been more than 400 peer-reviewed articles, published in more than 160 journals, which have used HINTS data, and an edited dedicated book comprising the HINTS knowledge base.13 As an illustrative example, two special issues of the Journal of Health Communication have featured HINTS articles, following from HINTS research presented at the national HINTS Data Users Conferences. The first special issue, The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): Research from the Baseline, was published in 2006, featuring data from the inaugural HINTS data collection.1 Studies published in this special issue covered a range of topics including cancer knowledge,14,15 cancer cognition and risk perceptions,16–20 and cancer information-seeking and communication.21–25 The second special issue, Partners in Progress: Informing the Practice of Health Communication through National Surveillance, was published in 2010.26 This special issue featured analysis of data from the first three administrations of HINTS and included studies on the following topics: health communication surveillance methodology,27,28 health communication and information-related disparities,29–37 patient-provider communication,38–40 and use of the internet and health communication technology.33,41–43
Highly cited articles from these special issues offer examples of the specific research topics pursued through use of HINTS data. Viswanath and colleagues examined the relationship between publicity and knowledge gaps using two cancer topics with varied levels of publicity: knowledge about tobacco and sun exposure.14 Results indicated that education and income were associated with awareness of the smoking and cancer link despite heavy media attention, and having at least a high school education was associated with knowledge of the sun exposure and cancer link.14 Dillard and colleagues assessed whether perceived risk of developing lung cancer was associated with acceptance of smoking-related myths and beliefs.19 Those whose perceived that risk was less than their objective risk (unrealistic optimists) were more likely to report: that there is no risk of developing lung cancer among those who smoke only a few years; and that developing lung cancer is determined by genetic factors. Unrealistic optimists were less likely to report an intention to quit smoking.19 Koch-Weser and colleagues examined sociodemographic factors associated with use of the internet for health information-seeking and found that those who used the internet to seek health information were younger, had higher education and income, preferred numbers to words to describe risk and were more likely to indicate that it is important to get personal medical information electronically.42
A complete bibliography of HINTS publications is maintained on the HINTS website: [https://hints.cancer.gov/publications-reports/hints-publications.aspx]. A variety of other HINTS reports are also available: [https://hints.cancer.gov/publications-reports/nci-reports.aspx].
A series of HINTS Briefs have been developed to provide population-level estimates for specific survey questions and to summarize noteworthy research findings by demographic characteristics: [https://hints.cancer.gov/publications-reports/hints-briefs.aspx]. HINTS Briefs are targeted toward results users who want to use HINTS data to inform their applied work. Many HINTS Briefs also summarize research findings from recent peer-reviewed journal articles using HINTS data. The following are some of the topics summarized in HINTS Briefs: Considerations for Developing Effective Health Communication Strategies; Preventing Cancer through Increased Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Uptake; and Developing an Electronic Health Information System for High-Quality Cancer Care.
Cancer patients and survivors
HINTS data have been extensively used to characterize the experiences of cancer patients and survivors. We conducted a review of the literature to identify published studies using HINTS data focused on cancer patients and survivors. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1 January 2003 to 15 May 15 2018, using the following search terms: health information national trend* or HINTS as text phrases, AND survivor* or cancer* OR explode neoplasms [MeSH]. This search returned 229 abstracts. All abstracts were reviewed to identify those meeting the following conditions: (i) the study used data from U.S. national collection of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS); and (ii) the study focused on cancer survivors/patients or compared cancer survivors or patients with other populations. Studies that used HINTS items or a HINTS instrument to collect data in a special (non-national) population were excluded, and studies that used cancer history as a control variable (i.e. not a variable of specific interest) were also excluded. A total of 35 articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. The following themes emerged in the focus of the articles reviewed: information seeking trends, experiences and sources44–51; patient-centred communication and clinical care52–55; use of internet and mobile technology in health56–62; health-related behaviour63–71; cancer cognition72–74; and health status and health outcomes.75–77
Table 4 summarizes the sociodemographic, cancer diagnosis and treatment status characteristics of the cross-sectional cohorts of cancer patients and survivors for each relevant HINTS administration. The table summarizes the total number of cancer patients per each survey administration, describes the sociodemographic characteristics thereof and indicates counts and percentages for specific cancer types. Across the survey years, the most frequent cancer types were breast, colon, cervical, skin, prostate, melanoma and endometrial cancer. In each survey year, most cancer patients reported receiving treatment for their cancer (range: 81.5–91.8%), with the majority of respondents reporting at least 2 years since diagnosis. These data offer a rich resource for examination of cancer patients’ and survivors’ cancer-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours, as well as their information-seeking experiences and needs.
Table 4.
Sample size and weighted estimates for HINTS respondents with a personal history of cancer by sociodemographic characteristics and cancer-related characteristics
| HINTS 1 | HINTS 2 | HINTS 3 | HINTS 4 |
HINTS 5 | Combined | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
2005 |
2008 |
Cycle 1 (2011) |
Cycle 2 (2012) |
Cycle 3 (2013) |
Cycle 4 (2014) |
Cycle 1 (2017) |
Total |
||||||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| Have you ever been diagnosed as having cancer? | ||||||||||||||||||
| Yes | 763 | 10.77 | 873 | 11.31 | 1, 001 | 7.25 | 563 | 8.53 | 464 | 8.19 | 459 | 8.08 | 542 | 8.52 | 504 | 8.64 | 5, 169 | 8.88 |
| Sex | ||||||||||||||||||
| Female | 532 | 64.57 | 596 | 56.09 | 590 | 56.65 | 317 | 57.83 | 258 | 54.77 | 280 | 59.96 | 319 | 62.41 | 303 | 59.68 | 3195 | 59.08 |
| Male | 231 | 35.43 | 277 | 43.91 | 411 | 43.35 | 229 | 42.17 | 200 | 45.23 | 168 | 40.04 | 205 | 37.59 | 187 | 40.32 | 1908 | 40.92 |
| Age | ||||||||||||||||||
| 18-34 | 57 | 8.78 | 29 | 5.09 | 18 | 2.54 | 14 | 3.08 | 15 | 5.80 | 12 | 4.66 | 9 | 3.78 | 4 | 1.71 | 158 | 4.56 |
| 35-49 | 139 | 19.71 | 117 | 17.55 | 101 | 14.89 | 46 | 10.08 | 45 | 11.78 | 40 | 15.37 | 48 | 15.07 | 30 | 10.50 | 566 | 14.53 |
| 50-64 | 229 | 30.44 | 246 | 32.18 | 323 | 34.10 | 202 | 35.00 | 138 | 31.95 | 137 | 29.64 | 164 | 34.82 | 171 | 37.16 | 1610 | 33.10 |
| 65-74 | 164 | 21.29 | 233 | 22.78 | 278 | 22.36 | 144 | 24.98 | 126 | 24.59 | 141 | 25.85 | 146 | 22.30 | 153 | 24.95 | 1385 | 23.59 |
| >=75 | 173 | 19.78 | 246 | 22.40 | 270 | 26.12 | 145 | 26.86 | 135 | 25.87 | 120 | 24.49 | 146 | 24.03 | 125 | 25.67 | 1360 | 24.21 |
| Race/ethnicity | ||||||||||||||||||
| Hispanic | 38 | 4.69 | 33 | 5.12 | 40 | 4.96 | 27 | 4.72 | 42 | 8.92 | 37 | 5.77 | 51 | 11.24 | 36 | 8.51 | 304 | 6.67 |
| NH White | 613 | 82.70 | 730 | 84.58 | 844 | 84.37 | 411 | 82.61 | 320 | 80.42 | 285 | 84.43 | 337 | 80.38 | 340 | 76.18 | 3880 | 81.93 |
| NH Black | 51 | 7.51 | 37 | 5.03 | 54 | 8.18 | 51 | 6.36 | 39 | 6.52 | 36 | 7.08 | 50 | 6.23 | 51 | 11.36 | 369 | 7.24 |
| NH Other | 31 | 5.09 | 38 | 5.27 | 35 | 2.50 | 32 | 6.30 | 18 | 4.13 | 16 | 2.72 | 22 | 2.15 | 22 | 3.94 | 214 | 4.15 |
| Education | ||||||||||||||||||
| Less than high school | 86 | 17.07 | 105 | 14.19 | 100 | 15.97 | 56 | 13.81 | 42 | 16.11 | 46 | 11.54 | 48 | 15.70 | 30 | 6.86 | 513 | 13.86 |
| High school graduate | 246 | 37.02 | 233 | 31.48 | 242 | 26.70 | 140 | 26.38 | 106 | 19.02 | 106 | 25.12 | 94 | 16.00 | 117 | 27.53 | 1284 | 26.51 |
| Some college | 185 | 22.85 | 266 | 30.73 | 268 | 28.77 | 161 | 26.90 | 151 | 39.75 | 132 | 30.24 | 164 | 31.95 | 147 | 34.72 | 1474 | 30.66 |
| College graduate | 228 | 23.06 | 239 | 23.60 | 384 | 28.55 | 193 | 32.91 | 160 | 25.12 | 162 | 33.10 | 209 | 36.36 | 193 | 30.89 | 1768 | 28.97 |
| Income | ||||||||||||||||||
| <$20, 000 | 150 | 22.12 | 172 | 22.02 | 160 | 21.11 | 128 | 24.53 | 84 | 18.84 | 96 | 17.55 | 114 | 18.52 | 90 | 18.40 | 994 | 20.42 |
| $20, 000 to <$35, 000 | 177 | 25.63 | 143 | 20.58 | 161 | 18.61 | 88 | 16.91 | 64 | 15.50 | 46 | 11.82 | 79 | 13.95 | 74 | 13.24 | 832 | 17.14 |
| $35, 000 to <$50, 000 | 106 | 18.78 | 95 | 14.29 | 134 | 17.31 | 81 | 18.00 | 59 | 15.67 | 61 | 14.22 | 70 | 14.98 | 51 | 9.75 | 657 | 15.28 |
| $50, 000 to <$75, 000 | 100 | 14.39 | 127 | 19.89 | 146 | 16.61 | 74 | 14.69 | 64 | 18.46 | 73 | 20.79 | 73 | 13.68 | 82 | 22.21 | 739 | 17.61 |
| $75, 000+ | 117 | 19.07 | 141 | 23.22 | 241 | 26.36 | 121 | 25.87 | 111 | 31.54 | 109 | 35.63 | 137 | 38.88 | 154 | 36.40 | 1131 | 29.54 |
| Metro/non-metro county | ||||||||||||||||||
| Metro | 613 | 79.54 | 676 | 78.30 | 798 | 79.33 | 459 | 82.23 | 376 | 74.03 | 389 | 83.75 | 461 | 80.16 | 426 | 81.99 | 4198 | 79.89 |
| Non-metro | 150 | 20.46 | 197 | 21.70 | 203 | 20.67 | 104 | 17.77 | 88 | 25.97 | 70 | 16.25 | 81 | 19.84 | 78 | 18.01 | 971 | 20.11 |
| Derived variable to categorize responses on cancer typea | ||||||||||||||||||
| Bladder cancer only | 10 | 1.38 | 13 | 1.78 | 17 | 1.54 | 4 | 0.74 | 8 | 1.46 | 6 | 1.52 | 11 | 1.30 | 5 | 0.76 | 74 | 1.31 |
| Bone cancer only | 1 | 0.23 | 2 | 0.19 | 5 | 0.79 | 1 | 0.09 | 0 | . | 0 | . | 2 | 0.12 | 1 | 0.01 | 12 | 0.16 |
| Breast cancer only | 108 | 13.11 | 164 | 14.25 | 139 | 13.02 | 77 | 10.93 | 65 | 12.54 | 72 | 17.13 | 87 | 15.36 | 83 | 14.72 | 795 | 13.89 |
| Cervical cancer only | 90 | 11.32 | 60 | 7.74 | 66 | 8.98 | 37 | 7.46 | 33 | 8.39 | 30 | 5.46 | 30 | 7.10 | 29 | 8.67 | 375 | 8.18 |
| Colon cancer only | 41 | 5.54 | 37 | 4.44 | 50 | 5.02 | 30 | 5.10 | 15 | 2.61 | 17 | 3.42 | 20 | 3.31 | 23 | 5.08 | 233 | 4.35 |
| Endometrial cancer only | 36 | 4.88 | 35 | 2.79 | 31 | 2.64 | 13 | 3.26 | 10 | 2.87 | 11 | 1.92 | 15 | 4.11 | 10 | 1.58 | 161 | 3.04 |
| Head/neck cancer only | 8 | 0.81 | 5 | 0.77 | 5 | 0.75 | 7 | 1.35 | 3 | 0.72 | 4 | 0.92 | 10 | 1.85 | 6 | 1.47 | 48 | 1.08 |
| Hodgkins only | 6 | 1.03 | 4 | 0.34 | 4 | 0.57 | 8 | 4.17 | 2 | 0.42 | 7 | 1.13 | 4 | 3.16 | 35 | 1.36 | ||
| Renal cancer only | 11 | 1.69 | 12 | 1.29 | 10 | 0.71 | 5 | 0.78 | 5 | 1.21 | 10 | 2.03 | 9 | 2.13 | 4 | 0.51 | 66 | 1.30 |
| Leukaemia only | 4 | 0.51 | 3 | 0.49 | 13 | 1.36 | 8 | 1.23 | 3 | 0.59 | 5 | 0.72 | 7 | 2.49 | 7 | 1.44 | 50 | 1.08 |
| Liver cancer only | 2 | 0.22 | 1 | 0.30 | 2 | 0.08 | 0 | . | 0 | . | 3 | 0.78 | 1 | 0.49 | 9 | 0.23 | ||
| Lung cancer only | 13 | 1.92 | 9 | 1.77 | 16 | 1.85 | 6 | 1.15 | 10 | 2.66 | 6 | 1.74 | 8 | 1.10 | 8 | 2.07 | 76 | 1.78 |
| Melanoma only | 52 | 7.66 | 68 | 8.78 | 67 | 7.75 | 26 | 5.21 | 19 | 4.39 | 20 | 5.97 | 27 | 4.99 | 23 | 4.58 | 302 | 6.22 |
| Non-Hodgkin only | 9 | 1.42 | 8 | 1.07 | 6 | 1.22 | 7 | 1.30 | 6 | 1.95 | 4 | 0.35 | 9 | 2.08 | 49 | 1.17 | ||
| Oral cancer only | 6 | 0.88 | 2 | 0.25 | 3 | 0.20 | 3 | 0.70 | 4 | 0.95 | 1 | 0.13 | 1 | 0.17 | 0 | . | 20 | 0.42 |
| Ovarian cancer only | 21 | 2.69 | 21 | 3.46 | 16 | 1.46 | 13 | 2.64 | 6 | 0.63 | 4 | 0.60 | 4 | 0.52 | 2 | 0.05 | 87 | 1.59 |
| Pancreatic cancer only | 2 | 0.23 | 1 | 0.07 | 3 | 0.24 | 0 | . | 1 | 0.04 | 3 | 0.17 | 0 | . | 2 | 0.35 | 12 | 0.14 |
| Pharyngeal cancer only | 5 | 0.60 | 6 | 1.60 | 6 | 1.35 | 1 | 0.05 | 1 | 0.09 | 1 | 0.11 | 2 | 0.67 | 0 | . | 22 | 0.57 |
| Prostate cancer only | 61 | 9.62 | 71 | 9.72 | 87 | 8.48 | 53 | 9.97 | 51 | 10.76 | 54 | 9.47 | 59 | 8.33 | 42 | 6.20 | 478 | 9.08 |
| Rectal cancer only | 2 | 0.13 | 2 | 0.09 | 2 | 0.15 | 3 | 0.18 | 0 | . | 0 | . | 2 | 0.21 | 4 | 0.78 | 15 | 0.20 |
| Skin cancer only | 138 | 16.30 | 162 | 17.88 | 239 | 22.44 | 116 | 23.08 | 92 | 20.05 | 107 | 25.40 | 117 | 25.02 | 124 | 24.95 | 1095 | 21.67 |
| Stomach cancer only | 5 | 1.45 | 9 | 1.65 | 3 | 0.35 | 0 | . | 3 | 0.50 | 2 | 0.17 | 1 | 0.01 | 2 | 0.71 | 25 | 0.66 |
| More than one cancer checked | 60 | 7.54 | 115 | 11.32 | 140 | 14.20 | 107 | 18.44 | 82 | 18.21 | 66 | 14.17 | 65 | 13.93 | 70 | 13.63 | 705 | 13.72 |
| Other cancer only | 62 | 8.71 | 57 | 7.01 | 50 | 4.99 | 32 | 5.76 | 26 | 5.86 | 24 | 6.57 | 28 | 5.01 | 34 | 6.72 | 313 | 6.42 |
| Lymphoma only (HINTS 1) | 19 | 2.81 | 19 | 0.39 | ||||||||||||||
| Did you ever receive any treatment for your cancer? | ||||||||||||||||||
| Yes | 721 | 81.45 | 862 | 86.92 | 417 | 91.01 | 477 | 89.13 | 457 | 91.76 | 2934 | 87.83 | ||||||
| No | 151 | 18.55 | 120 | 13.08 | 44 | 8.99 | 55 | 10.87 | 40 | 8.24 | 410 | 12.17 | ||||||
| How long ago were you diagnosed with cancer? (derived) | ||||||||||||||||||
| Less than 1 year since diagnosis | 115 | 16.62 | 119 | 15.95 | 99 | 10.90 | 58 | 9.88 | 56 | 10.00 | 58 | 14.49 | 57 | 12.43 | 61 | 15.22 | 623 | 13.43 |
| 2-5 years | 171 | 20.32 | 231 | 31.11 | 241 | 26.61 | 127 | 23.42 | 111 | 28.42 | 117 | 31.10 | 113 | 19.92 | 96 | 17.66 | 1207 | 24.82 |
| 6-10 years | 164 | 23.43 | 160 | 16.06 | 184 | 17.95 | 101 | 20.24 | 84 | 20.31 | 88 | 17.73 | 94 | 21.14 | 95 | 20.73 | 970 | 19.71 |
| 11+ years | 305 | 39.64 | 351 | 36.88 | 442 | 44.54 | 247 | 46.46 | 190 | 41.27 | 170 | 36.69 | 221 | 46.51 | 212 | 46.39 | 2138 | 42.04 |
HINTS 1 had different response options that did not have liver, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin cancers. Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin cancers were probably combined under lymphoma.
Strengths and weaknesses
HINTS is unique among national data resources in its focus on health communication and health information. The HINTS programme offers a resource for investigators from diverse disciplines and gives access to data that speak to population use of information and communication resources during a time of unprecedented change in the information and communication landscape. As described above and in Table 4, HINTS also provides a rich cohort of cancer patient and survivor data for secondary analysis.
Since its inception, the HINTS programme has invested heavily in efforts to ensure that the data are readily and easily accessible and usable for data users and results users. The HINTS website is rich with tools to enable data access and to support data use (see Data resource access section). A variety of materials have also been developed for results users, including an online data display tool, and HINTS Briefs, which summarize key results from HINTS publications and offer insights into potential applications in public health and clinical practice.
HINTS data are cross-sectional; as such, inferences about causality are generally not appropriate. Similar to other national health surveys, response rates for HINTS have declined over time.78,79 Lower response rates may introduce bias in the data, but efforts were made in each HINTS administration to reduce potential for bias through sampling and weighting procedures.4 Additionally, methodological research suggests that the negative impact of declining response rates on data quality may not be as dramatic as previously assumed.78,80,81 The HINTS programme team recently conducted a rigorous non-response bias analysis of data from HINTS 4 (Cycles 1 and 3) to characterize the potential impact of non-response.82 Findings from this study revealed that many of the demographic influences on non-response (e.g. age, socioeconomic status) can be compensated for through application of standard weighting procedures.82 More specific results of this non-response analysis involving comparison of response rates among population subgroups, comparison with national benchmarks, and level-of-effort analysis have been previously published.82
National surveys are usually constrained to measuring constructs with only one or two survey items, to reduce respondent burden. Therefore, the number of items available for measuring complex attitudinal and behavioural constructs is often limited. Although use of single items for measurement of social and behavioural constructs is not ideal, this approach is common in large-scale and national survey research.17,83–85 When compared with validated multi-item scales, single-item measures can have similar test–retest reliability and construct validity86,87; however, single items are less reliable than scales and may attenuate observed associations.88 Constraints on survey length may also lead to changes in the survey content over time, thereby limiting the temporal trends and comparisons that may be tracked over time.
While the relatively small sample size for HINTS does not support the calculation of reliable estimates at the state level, innovative geographical information system strategies have been employed to calculate regional geographical estimates,89–91 and supplemental funding has been granted to certain NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centres to support collection of HINTS data at the local level.92
Data resource access
The HINTS programme has striven from the beginning to enable users to use the HINTS data as easily as possible. HINTS data are in the public domain, and public use datasets are available for download as SAS, STATA and SPSS files from [https://hints.cancer.gov]. Each dataset is bundled with supporting documents including analytics recommendations (including example statistical software code), history document, codebook, methodology report (including details about sampling and the creation of survey weights) and annotated survey instruments. Codebooks for each dataset are also available online, and all of the instruments included in the data download bundle are annotated with variable names and allowable codes. Additionally, several resources been published describing how to use HINTS data: [https://hints.cancer.gov/meetings-trainings/how-to-hints-webinar.aspx]. Where possible, HINTS adheres to the F.A.I.R. (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles.93
Profile in a nutshell
HINTS is as a cross-sectional national survey of non-institutionalized adults, developed to track trends in cancer-related communication, health information-seeking and cancer-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in the US population. It is the only national population-based survey that collects information on the US public’s need for, access to and experience with cancer-related information.
HINTS was first fielded in 2002–03, and has been administered five times over approximately a 15-year period, with HINTS 4 and 5 including multiple data collection cycles (n = 37 365).
HINTS was initially administered as a random digit dial (RDD) computer-assisted telephone interview to a representative sample of households drawn from all telephone exchanges in the US. In 2008, HINTS was fielded using a mixed-mode (RDD telephone interview and mailed questionnaire), dual-frame (all telephone exchanges in the US and a comprehensive national listing of United States Postal Service addresses) format. Each HINTS administration since 2008 has been conducted as a mailed survey using an address-based sampling frame.
Each HINTS instrument includes a core set of items to assess: communication technology access and use, health and cancer information-seeking, cancer-related knowledge and behaviour, cancer risk perceptions and health care access.
HINTS public use datasets are available for download: [https://hints.cancer.gov].
Funding
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute via HHSN261201800002B.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
References
- 1. Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJF, Kreps GL.. The Health Information National Trends Survey: research from the baseline. J Health Commun 2006;11:vii–xvi. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Hesse BW. et al. The Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): development, design, and dissemination. J Health Commun 2004;9:443–60; discussion 81–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Cantor D, Covell J, Davis K, Park I, Rizzo L.. Health Information National Trends Survey 2005 (HINTS 2005) Final Report. Rockville, MD: Westat, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Cantor D, Coa K, Crystal-Mansour S, Davis T, Dipko S, Sigman R. Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 2007 Final Report 2009. Rockville, MD: Westat, December 15, 2014.
- 5.Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (HINTS 4) Cycle 1. Methodology Report. Rockville, MD: Westat, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (HINTS 4) Cycle 2. Methodology Report. Rockville, MD: Westat, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (HINTS 4) Cycle 3. Methodology Report. Rockville, MD: Westat, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Health Information National Trends Survey 4 (HINTS 4) Cycle 4. Methodology Report. Rockville, MD: Westat, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Health Information National Trends Survey 5 (HINTS 5) Cycle 1. Methodology Report. Rockville, MD: Westat, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Sirken MG, Herrmann DJ, Schechter S, Schwarz N, Tanur J, Tourangeau R.. Cognition and Survey Research. New York, NY: Wiley, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Groves RM, Fowler FJ, Couper MP, Lepkowski JM, Singer E, Tourangeau R.. Survey Methodology. New York, NY: Wiley, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Willis G. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- 13. Finney Rutten LJ, Hesse BW, Moser RP, Kreps GL.. Building the Evidence Base in Cancer Communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Viswanath K, Breen N, Meissner H. et al. Cancer knowledge and disparities in the information age. J Health Commun 2006;11:1–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Ford JS, Coups EJ, Hay JL.. Knowledge of colon cancer screening in a national probability sample in the United States. J Health Commun 2006;11:19–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Zajac LE, Klein WMP, McCaul KD.. Absolute and comparative risk perceptions as predictors of cancer worry: moderating effects of gender and psychological distress. J Health Commun 2006;11:37–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Han PKJ, Moser RP, Klein W.. Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: relationship to perceptions of cancer preventability, risk, and worry. J Health Commun 2006;11:51–69. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Hay J, Coups E, Ford J.. Predictors of perceived risk for colon cancer in a national probability sample in the United States. J Health Commun 2006;11:71–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Dillard AJ, McCaul KD, Klein W.. Unrealistic optimism in smokers: implications for smoking myth endorsement and self-protective motivation. J Health Commun 2006;11:93–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Cerully JL, Klein WMP, McCaul KD.. Lack of acknowledgment of fruit and vegetable recommendations among nonadherent individuals: associations with information processing and cancer cognitions. J Health Commun 2006;11:103–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Squiers L, Bright MA, Finney Rutten LJ. et al. Awareness of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service: results from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Commun 2006;11:117–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Finney Rutten LJ, Augustson E, Wanke K.. Factors associated with patients' perceptions of Health Care Providers' communication behavior. J Health Commun 2006;11:135–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Shim M, Kelly B, Hornik R.. Cancer information scanning and seeking behavior is associated with knowledge, lifestyle choices, and screening. J Health Commun 2006;11:157–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Nguyen GT, Bellamy SL.. Cancer information seeking preferences and experiences: disparities between Asian Americans and Whites in the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Commun 2006;11:173–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Ling BS, Klein WM, Dang Q.. Relationship of communication and information measures to colorectal cancer screening utilization: results from HINTS. J Health Commun 2006;11:181–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Finney Rutten LJ, Blake K, Moser RP, Hesse BW.. Partners in progress: informing the science and practice of health communication through national surveillance. J Health Commun 2010;15:3–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Peytchev A, Ridenhour J, Krotki K.. Differences between RDD telephone and ABS mail survey design: coverage, unit nonresponse, and measurement error. J Health Commun 2010;15:117–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. McBride B, Cantor D.. Factors in errors of omission on a self-administered paper questionnaire. J Health Commun 2010;15:102–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Zhao X. Cancer information disparities between U.S.- and foreign-born populations. J Health Commun 2010;15:5–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Vanderpool RC, Huang B.. Cancer risk perceptions, beliefs, and physician avoidance in Appalachia: results from the 2008 HINTS survey. J Health Commun 2010;15:78–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Oh A, Shaikh A, Waters E, Atienza A, Moser RP, Perna F.. Health disparities in awareness of physical activity and cancer prevention: findings from the National Cancer Institute's 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Commun 2010;15:60–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Langford A, Resnicow K, An L.. Clinical trial awareness among racial/ethnic minorities in HINTS 2007: sociodemographic, attitudinal, and knowledge correlates. J Health Commun 2010;15:92–101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Kontos EZ, Emmons KM, Puleo E, Viswanath K.. Communication inequalities and public health implications of adult social networking site use in the United States. J Health Commun 2010;15:216–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Kobetz E, Kornfeld J, Vanderpool RC. et al. Knowledge of HPV among United States Hispanic women: opportunities and challenges for cancer prevention. J Health Commun 2010;15:22–29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Geiger BF, O'Neal MR, Firsing SL. et al. HealthyME HealthyU©2010UCPGB: a collaborative project to enhance access to health information and services for individuals with disabilities. J Health Commun 2010;15:46–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Clayman ML, Manganello JA, Viswanath K, Hesse BW, Arora NK.. Providing health messages to Hispanics/Latinos: understanding the importance of language, trust in health information sources, and media use. J Health Commun 2010;15:252–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Kaufman A, Augustson E, Davis K, Finney Rutten LJ.. Awareness and use of tobacco quitlines: evidence from the Health Information National Trends Survey. J Health Commun 2010;15: 264–78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Smith SG, Wolf MS, Wagner C.. Socioeconomic status, statistical confidence, and patient–provider communication: an analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 2007). J Health Commun 2010;15:169–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Marks R, Ok H, Joung H, Allegrante JP.. Perceptions about collaborative decisions: perceived provider effectiveness among 2003 and 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) respondents. J Health Commun 2010;15:135–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Hou J, Shim M.. The role of provider–patient communication and trust in online sources in internet use for health-related activities. J Health Commun 2010;15:186–99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Tortolero-Luna G, Finney Rutten LJ, Hesse BW. et al. Health and cancer information seeking practices and preferences in Puerto Rico: creating an evidence base for cancer communication efforts. J Health Commun 2010;15:30–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Koch-Weser S, Bradshaw YS, Gualtieri L, Gallagher SS.. The Internet as a health information source: findings from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey and implications for health communication. J Health Commun 2010;15: 279–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Kealey E, Berkman CS.. The relationship between health information sources and mental models of cancer: findings from the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey. J Health Commun 2010;15:236–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Barnes LLB, Khojasteh JJ, Wheeler D.. Cancer information seeking and scanning: Sources and patterns. Health Educ J 2017;76:853–68. [Google Scholar]
- 45. Finney Rutten LJ, Agunwamba AA, Wilson P. et al. Cancer-related information seeking among cancer survivors: trends over a decade (2003-2013). J Cancer Educ 2016;1:348–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Hartoonian N, Ormseth SR, Hanson ER, Bantum EO, Owen JE.. Information-seeking in cancer survivors: application of the Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking to HINTS 2007 data. J Health Commun 2014;19:1308–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Hesse BW, Arora NK, Beckjord EB, Finney Rutten LJ.. Information support for cancer survivors. Cancer 2008;112:2529–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Kim K, Kwon N.. Profile of e-patients: Analysis of their cancer information-seeking from a national survey. J Health Commun 2010;15:712–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Mayer DK, Terrin NC, Kreps GL. et al. Cancer survivors information seeking behaviors: a comparison of survivors who do and do not seek information about cancer. Patient Educ Couns 2007;1:342–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Ramanadhan S, Viswanath K.. Health and the information nonseeker: a profile. Health Commun 2006;20:131–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Roach AR, Lykins EL, Gochett CG, Brechting EH, Graue LO, Andrykowski MA.. Differences in cancer information-seeking behavior, preferences, and awareness between cancer survivors and healthy controls: a national, population-based survey. J Cancer Educ 2009;24:73–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Bernat JK, Coa K, Blanch-Hartigan D.. Cancer survivors as activated patients: exploring the relationship between cancer history and patient activation. J Psychosoc Oncol 2017;35:239–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Blanch-Hartigan D, Chawla N, Beckjord EI. et al. Cancer survivors' receipt of treatment summaries and implications for patient-centered communication and quality of care. Patient Educ Couns 2015;98:1274–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Blanch-Hartigan D, Chawla N, Moser RP, Finney Rutten LJ, Hesse BW, Arora NK.. Trends in cancer survivors' experience of patient-centered communication: results from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Cancer Surviv 2016;10:1067–77. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Ok H, Marks R, Allegrante JP.. Perceptions of health care provider communication activity among American cancer survivors and adults without cancer histories: an analysis of the 2003 Health Information Trends Survey (HINTS) data. J Health Commun 2008;1:637–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Chou WY, Liu B, Post S, Hesse B.. Health-related Internet use among cancer survivors: data from the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2003-2008. J Cancer Surviv 2011;1:263–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Jiang S. The role of social media use in improving cancer survivors' emotional well-being: a moderated mediation study. J Cancer Surviv 2017;1:386–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Jiang S, Hong YA.. Mobile-based patient-provider communication in cancer survivors: the roles of health literacy and patient activation. Psychooncology 2018;27:886–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Jiang Y, West BT, Barton DL, Harris MR, Acceptance and use of eHealth/mHealth applications for self-management among cancer survivors In: Dongsheng Z, Gundlapalli AV, Marie-Christine J (eds).. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics. Vol. 245. Ann Arbor, MI: IOS Press, 2017. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Shahrokni A, Mahmoudzadeh S, Lu BT.. In whom do cancer survivors trust online and offline? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:6171–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Tian Y, Robinson JD.. Incidental health information use and media complementarity: a comparison of senior and non-senior cancer patients. Patient Educ Counsel 2008;71:340–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Tian Y, Robinson JD.. Media use and health information seeking: an empirical test of complementarity theory. Health Commun 2008;23:184–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Kim BH, Wallington SF, Makambi KH, Adams-Campbell LL.. Social networks and physical activity behaviors among cancer survivors: data from the 2005 Health Information National Trends. J Health Commun Survey 2015;1:656–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Laiyemo AO, Williams C, Smoot D, Platz EA.. Colorectal cancer screening among cancer survivors in the US. Clin Transl Sci 2014;7:259. [Google Scholar]
- 65. Laiyemo M, Nunlee-Bland G, Lombardo F, Adams RG, Laiyemo A.. Complementary and alternative medicine use among cancer survivors in the United States. Cancer Res 2013;73:2522. [Google Scholar]
- 66. Lau SC, Chen L, Cheung WY.. Protective skin care behaviors in cancer survivors. Curr Oncol 2014;21:e531–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Mayer DK, Carlson J.. Smoking patterns in cancer survivors. Nicotine Tob Res 2011;1:34–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Mayer DK, Terrin NC, Menon U. et al. Screening practices in cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 2007;1:17–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Mayer DK, Terrin NC, Menon U. et al. Health behaviors in cancer survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum 2007;34:643–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Ottenbacher A, Yu M, Moser RP, Phillips SM, Alfano C, Perna FM.. Population estimates of meeting strength training and aerobic guidelines, by gender and cancer survivorship status: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Phys Act Health 2015;12:675–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Wild SR, Grover S, Johnston F.. Screening practices and factors impacting screening uptake in breast and prostate cancer survivors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013;1:S575–76. [Google Scholar]
- 72. Kowalkowski MA, Hart SL, Du XL, Baraniuk S, Latini DM.. Cancer perceptions: implications from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey. J Cancer Surviv 2012;1:287–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Lykins EL, Graue LO, Brechting EH, Roach AR, Gochett CG, Andrykowsk MA.. Beliefs about cancer causation and prevention as a function of personal and family history of cancer: a national, population-based study. Psychooncology 2008;17:967–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Malo T, Pal T, Bonner D, Kim J, Vadaparampil S.. Black breast cancer survivors' health information preferences. Psychooncology 2014;1:81–82. [Google Scholar]
- 75. Apenteng BA, Hansen AR, Opoku ST, Mase WA.. Racial disparities in emotional distress among cancer survivors: insights from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Cancer Educ 2017;1:556–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Moten A, Jeffers K, Larbi D. et al. Obesity and weight loss attempts among subjects with a personal history of cancer. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 2014;1:e330–36. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Taber JM, Klein WM, Ferrer RA, Kent EE, Harris PR.. Optimism and spontaneous self-affirmation are associated with lower likelihood of cognitive impairment and greater positive affect among cancer survivors. Ann Behav Med 2016;1:198–209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Fahimi M, Link M, Mokdad A, Schwartz DA, Levy P.. Tracking chronic disease and risk behavior prevalence as survey participation declines: statistics from the behavioral risk factor surveillance system and other national surveys. Prev Chronic Dis 2008;5:A80.. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV, Cynamon ML.. Telephone coverage and health survey estimates: evaluating the need for concern about wireless substitution. Am J Public Health 2006;96:926–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Nelson DE, Powell-Griner E, Town M, Kovar MG.. A comparison of national estimates from the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance system. Am J Public Health 2003;93:1335–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Gentry EM, Kalsbeek WD, Hogelin GC. et al. The behavioral risk factor surveys: II. Design, methods, and estimates from combined state data. Am J Prev Med 1985;1:9–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Maitland A, Lin A, Cantor D. et al. A nonresponse bias analysis of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Commun 2017;22:545–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Han PK, Moser RP, Klein WM.. Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: associations with cancer-related perceptions and behaviours in a US population survey. Health Expect 2007;10:321–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. Ferrer RA, Portnoy DB, Klein WM.. Worry and risk perceptions as independent and interacting predictors of health protective behaviors. J Health Commun 2013;18:397–409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Ferrer RA, Hall KL, Portnoy DB, Ling BS, Han PKJ, Klein W.. Relationships among health perceptions vary depending on stage of readiness for colorectal cancer screening. Health Psychol 2011;30:525–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Ferrer RA, Klein WMP, Avishai A, Jones K, Villegas M, Sheeran P.. When does risk perception predict protection motivation for health threats? A person-by-situation analysis. PLos One 2018;13:e01911994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR.. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. J Market Res 2007;44:175–84. [Google Scholar]
- 88. Luttrell A, Petty RE, Xu M.. Replicating and fixing failed replications: the case of need for cognition and argument quality. J Exp Soc Psychol 2017;69: 178–83. [Google Scholar]
- 89. Finney Rutten LJ, Augustson EM, Moser RP, Beckjord EB, Hesse BW.. Smoking knowledge and behavior in the United States: sociodemographic, smoking status, and geographic patterns. Nicotine Tob Res 2008;10:1559–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.National Cancer Institute. State Cancer Profiles, Cancer Knowledge Maps 2016. https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/data-topics/cancer-knowledge.html (1 June 2018, date last accessed).
- 91. Rao JNK, Molina I.. Small Area Estimation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- 92.National Cancer Institute. Population Health Assessment in Cancer Center Catchment Areas. 2018. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/hcirb/catchment-areas.html (1 June 2018, date last accessed).
- 93.National Institutes of Health. NIH-Wide Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2016–2020. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 2015. [Google Scholar]
