Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats is ethically desirable but challenging due to its tendency to promote avoidance of choice options with unknown probabilities—a phenomenon known as “ambiguity aversion.” This study examined this phenomenon’s potential magnitude, its responses to different communication strategies, and its mechanisms. In a factorial experiment, 2701 adult laypersons in Spain read one of three versions of a hypothetical newspaper article describing a pandemic vaccine-preventable disease (VPD), but varying in scientific uncertainty about VPD risk and vaccine effectiveness: No-Uncertainty, Uncertainty, and Normalized-Uncertainty (emphasizing its expected nature). Vaccination intentions were lower for the Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups compared to the No-Uncertainty group, consistent with ambiguity aversion; Uncertainty and Normalized-Uncertainty groups did not differ. Ambiguity-averse responses were moderated by health literacy and mediated by perceptions of vaccine effectiveness, VPD likelihood, and VPD severity. Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats warrants caution and further research to elucidate its outcomes, mechanisms, and management.

Key Points Question What medically relevant information do patients withhold from their clinicians, and why do they do so? Findings In 2 national, nonprobability online surveys of 4510 US adults, most participants reported withholding at least 1 of 7 types of medically relevant information, especially when they disagreed with the clinician’s recommendations or misunderstood the clinician’s instructions. The most commonly reported reasons for not disclosing information included not wanting to be judged or hear how harmful their behavior is. Meaning Patients commonly withhold medically relevant information from their clinicians, a pattern that likely inhibits the quality of patient care.

On June 9, 2021, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr).On May 10, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded its Emergency Use Authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to include adolescents aged 12-15 years; this authorization was followed by interim recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for the vaccine among this age group (1). Using data from nonprobability-based Internet panel surveys administered by the Healthcare and Public Perceptions of Immunizations (HaPPI) Survey Collaborative, the acceptability of adolescent COVID-19 vaccination and self-reported factors increasing vaccination intent were assessed among independently recruited samples of 985 adolescents aged 13-17 years and 1,022 parents and guardians (parents) of adolescents aged 12-17 years during April 15-April 23, 2021, prior to vaccine authorization for this age group. Approximately one quarter (27.6%) of parents whose adolescents were already vaccine-eligible (i.e., aged 16-17 years) reported their adolescent had received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine dose, similar to the proportion reported by vaccine-eligible adolescents aged 16-17 years (26.1%). However, vaccine receipt reported by parents of adolescents differed across demographic groups; parents identifying as female or Hispanic, or who had an education lower than a bachelor's degree reported the lowest adolescent COVID-19 vaccination receipt. Among parents of unvaccinated adolescents aged 12-17 years, 55.5% reported they would "definitely" or "probably" have their adolescent receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Among unvaccinated adolescents aged 13-17 years, 51.7% reported they would "definitely" or "probably" receive a COVID-19 vaccination. Obtaining more information about adolescent COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy, as well as school COVID-19 vaccination requirements, were the most commonly reported factors that would increase vaccination intentions among both parents and adolescents. Federal, state, and local health officials and primary care professionals were the most trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information among both groups. Efforts focusing on clearly communicating to the public the benefits and safety of COVID-19 vaccination for adolescents, particularly by health care professionals, could help increase confidence in adolescent COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination coverage.

Key Points Question What is the association between health insurance literacy and avoidance of health care services owing to cost? Findings In this US national survey study of 506 insured adults, 29.6% reported having delayed or foregone care because of cost. Higher health insurance literacy was associated with a lower likelihood of delayed or foregone care owing to cost for both preventive and nonpreventive care. Meaning These findings suggest that to improve appropriate use of recommended health care services, including preventive health services, clinicians and policymakers may need to adopt communication strategies that make health insurance concepts accessible to individuals regardless of health insurance literacy and improve consumers’ understanding of services exempt from out-of-pocket costs.

Objective: Most electronic health record systems provide laboratory test results to patients in table format. We tested whether presenting such results in visual displays (number lines) could improve understanding. Materials and Methods: We presented 1620 adults recruited from a demographically diverse Internet panel with hypothetical results from several common laboratory tests, first showing near-normal results and then more extreme values. Participants viewed results in either table format (with a "standard range" provided) or one of 3 number line formats: a simple 2-color format, a format with diagnostic categories such as "borderline high" indicated by colored blocks, and a gradient format that used color gradients to smoothly represent increasing risk as values deviated from standard ranges. We measured respondents' subjective sense of urgency about each test result, their behavioral intentions, and their perceptions of the display format. Results: Visual displays reduced respondents' perceived urgency and desire to contact health care providers immediately for near-normal test results compared to tables but did not affect their perceptions of extreme values. In regression analyses controlling for respondent health literacy, numeracy, and graphical literacy, gradient line displays resulted in the greatest sensitivity to changes in test results. Discussion: Unlike tables, which only tell patients whether test results are normal or not, visual displays can increase the meaningfulness of test results by clearly defining possible values and leveraging color cues and evaluative labels. Conclusion: Patient-facing displays of laboratory test results should use visual displays rather than tables to increase people's sensitivity to variations in their results.

No abstract

Men who prefer a more minimizing approach to medicine are more responsive to evidence supporting limiting or forgoing screening than men who prefer a maximizing approach.

Background Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion—a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need. Objective This study aimed to evaluate whether an “uncertainty-normalizing” communication strategy—aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic—can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values. Methods In an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies. Results The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19. Conclusions Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.