Talking About Health; Why Health Communication Matters

Have you heard of black bean powder?

February 7, 2011

I love to try new foods. I particularly like spices. I like the smell of ground cloves and cinnamon…I love a fresh tomato out of the garden. I love peppers and grow several kinds each summer. I love the smell of fresh herbs and grow them as well. I dry oregano for use in my own cooking and to give as gifts. And as luck would have it, these things turn out to be good for you…

Research links consuming cinnamon to improved glucose levels and less likelihood of diabetes, as well as improved cholesterol [http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/12/3215.abstract]. Dried oregano works as an antioxidant… Cloves may prompt recall…

One of the graduate students in our health communication program brought me a gift when she returned from Korea after the break–black bean powder. .. I love black beans, especially when they have been cooked with some of the spices I like best and served with tortillas. I also have experimented with making black bean brownies… But I hadn’t heard of black bean powder. It provides a very easy way to add protein to a meal, even breakfast. Add to a glass of milk with a little honey and–presto–a healthy breakfast or other time power drink. Make your own black bean powder [http://www.soy-beans.org/soy-powder.html].

It’s fun to talk with friends and family about good food… and to make and share it… especially when you know it is good for your health, too.

How do we know what health message to trust about autism and vaccines?

January 7, 2011

121_2191b Well, the issue that one of the students in my undergraduate students focused on last semester — in the designing health messages class — was autism and vaccines. She explained how the medical research that led to media stories about vaccines and autism was based on a small sample size of 12 children and that 10 of 13 of the original researchers who authored the study no longer stand behind its conclusion that there is a link between autism and vaccines. Now, we have a new story in a medical journal — telling how the results in the original publication were ‘made up’. See http://kottke.org/11/01/autism-study-fraudulent

As consumers of news and health information, we can question samples sizes. We can question the ways that studies are conducted, including whether there were too few or too many control variables. We can question the lack of representativeness of a study — the failure to include males and females, or the absence of different age groups and various sociodemographic audiences, for example. But we do have to ‘trust’ that the researchers accurately represent what actually happens in the conduct of a study. Just as we trust grocers to put expiration dates on our food labels that reflect actual dates, that bankers take precautions to safeguard our accounts, that pilots and bus drivers and auto mechanics are honest when they say they have been trained to do the work that we trust them to do. And for the most part, in all of these cases, and in medical research as well — we can trust… But it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t ask questions. And it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t look for the credentials to support our trust…

How will health care reform change how our country communicates about health?

118_1806 May 12, 2010

Watching my 5 year old granddaughter play youth soccer was great fun. Such energy. Such excitement. Such effort. Everyone running toward the ball and doing their best to get in a good kick. Sometimes in their enthusiasm, they lost sight of which goal they should be aiming for and may even accidentally kick the ball into the other team’s space. It’s a bit like health care reform in the U.S.

Keep ‘health’ in health communication… this is one of my mantras. I remind myself of it when thinking about the value of my own health communication research and the value of work that I review. It reminds me to consider, “how will the work make a difference in the health of someone?” Will it, for example, help someone to make a decision about which treatment to choose, which food to eat, how important rest and fun can be for health? Will it help someone to talk with family members about health history or to disclose to family members, doctors, or others important information about health status? Will it enable others to provide emotional or tangible social support to keep to a health regimen? …and so on.

So when I listen to conversation about health care reform, I am struck by several trends. First, there is so much fear and anger in the discourse. My mom, for example, will be having hip replacement surgery this summer. She is in her late 70s and on Medicare. She is convinced that her doctor will be paid very little for her surgery because of health care reform. She is also fearful that if she doesn’t act now, she may not be able to even find a doctor who will do the surgery soon…because the doctors won’t be paid well and won’t accept patients on Medicare.

We know quite a bit about fear appeals in communication. And sure enough, what I hear suggests to me that for many, the talk about health care reform and the actual reform itself does not make the efficacy of the actions clear. How will this reform be an effective response in both promoting ‘health’ of citizens and in limiting the runaway expenses? How might each one of us feel more confident or gain the ability to make decisions about our own health based on the reform? Made to feel fearful, many become angry and direct it toward the source.

Second, there has been too little direct translation of how health care reform will benefit health. Health illiteracy and science illiteracy often provide a way to explain our lack of understanding about health issues. Health insurance illiteracy is a whole new ball game. Most of us have some experience with car insurance or home owner insurance or life insurance, so we fall back on those as a way to understand health care insurance and health care reform. We need some help here. We need to know what ideas from other insurance contexts apply and what ideas don’t apply.

In some cases, if you get ticketed for speeding or running a red light, it shows up as higher premiums on your car insurance for awhile. Generally, we think that buying life insurance when we are younger rather than older will be less expensive. And if we fail to prune the tall tree near our home and it falls onto our roof, causing us to file a claim–some increase in our premium isn’t too surprising. So how do these ideas relate to health care reform? And if they don’t, why not?

Third, the optimistic outcome relating to health care reform and changes for how our country communicates about health is that we all become wiser about how politics relates to health… So we participate in the political process with our vote in elections and our voice in debate… not just in overcrowded town hall meetings but in the online forums available to us through access to our representatives where we ask questions and persist until we have answers… often and not just when something ‘big’ seems to be in the wind.

In short, we need to keep our eye on the ball and the goal, and make sure that those who represent us do the same…

What does the “food pyramid” tell us about health communication and ‘old science’, ‘new science’, ‘conflicting science’, and no science’?

143_07811 May 3, 2010

I cannot recall the first time I heard about the ‘food pyramid’ but it was decades ago. The United States Department of Agriculture [USDA] online site at http://www.mypyramid.gov/ provides an overview of the research in this area. Right under the image of the pyramid on the homepage, the follow sentence is bolded: “One size doesn’t fit all.” Over to the left of the pyramid, the heading, ‘Specific Audiences,’ includes ‘Preschoolers’, ‘Kids’, ‘Pregnant & Breastfeeding’, and ‘General Population’–giving us a sense of groups whose needs vary. Skimming through some of the information, it doesn’t take long to affirm one of the points that I make in my book, Talking about health…

When communicating about health, sometimes there is no science to guide prevention guidelines, diagnosis, or treatment. A quick review of the history of the food pyramid shows that even before vitamins and minerals had been discovered, the USDA provided dietary guidelines–the first time appearing in 1894. The first food pyramid was published in the 1960s. The goal is to help us know how to talk about food and nutrition without having to be an expert. So food is divided into groups and we gain a sense of how much of each group adds up to a more versus less healthy diet.

Often, what we know in any area relating to health is based on ‘old science’ that we learned in school several years or even decades ago–forgetting the simple fact that times change. New knowledge is generated everyday. If asked, we know this truth. The trick is to apply it when we are communicating about health. ‘New science’ may support the ‘old science’ or build on its core idea. ‘New science’ may also conflict with ‘old science’ creating doubt and indecision. It is helpful when talking about health to consider the ‘age’ of the science we are using and also the characteristics of the people the science is based on. As suggested by the latest food pyramid, when science takes into account the ‘age’ of and audience, the food pyramid looks slightly different for different groups…

What is Dr. Besser telling us when he says, “There is no ‘evidence’ that herbs work for a cold”?

March 30, 2010

Spring is in the air and hopefully, you are not suffering from a spring cold. Or allergies. This morning on, “Good Morning America,” Dr. Besser talked about health information and social media–offering cautions about ‘advice’ that might appear on Facebook or other outlets, or health information sent via tweets.

After offering the general advice to be careful about what we believe, he focused on an example relating to the use of an herb to fight a cold. He made the statement I used in the title for this post: “There is no evidence that herbs work for a cold.” O.K. What’s wrong with that statement?

From a health communication perspective, this kind of comment is made often. If Dr. Besser or another source of the comment is someone we trust and believe to be an expert, we may accept the comment without further thought. We are usually not expert in health. Not surprisingly, we look to experts in health to guide our understanding.

But here is the problem I have with such statements. They do nothing to help us become more competent in making decisions for ourselves about health information. Dr. Besser could explain that there is no evidence and also explain what he means by evidence. For him, evidence = scientific data. Those numbers are usually the result of carefully conducted clinical trials. Those carefully conducted clinical trials cost — well a lot of money. And relatively few dollars are spent on research to study complementary and alternative medical practices–such as the use of herbs to fight colds.

The traditional approaches to health in the U.S. are prescription and over-the-counter drugs, and surgery, and the use of medical devices–many device relate to surgery and others that boost some of our ability to manage our own health. There are many expensive funded studies to evaluate the effects of these approaches. Based on the results, evidence is published and then disseminated to guide our doctors’ knowledge and our care.

We should realize that the research by pharmaceutical companies sometimes looks at herbs and works to understand how they might work to help or harm human health. Finding that an herb works may lead the drug company to produce synthetic versions of the herb and conduct research to see how they work. After all, we and our doctors do not live in the era of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman and cannot go into nearby woods to pick herbs to make teas or other potions to heal us. Medicine generally needs products that can be sold in mass quantities.

So, what does a lack of evidence mean when it comes to Dr. Besser’s statement? It means that no scientific clinical trials have shown the use of the ‘natural’ herb to be effective in reducing the effects of a cold.

Dr. Besser’s statment is not considering that your friend, your neighbor, or a thousand friends and neighbors on a social media site have used the herb and tell their stories about how it worked for them. It is not addressing the fact that we often trust the stories of others as ‘evidence.’ But it is not the same kind of evidence as science would provide. That is something he did not say. From a health communication perspective, we want to know this to help us better understand health information.

He also did not say whether the herb being promoted for a cold is one that drug companies may have or may be studying in some form. From a health communication perspective, we also want to know this to help us better understand health information…

What is a “competent” health communicator?

119_1944a February 9, 2010

I received a ‘smileworthy’ email from my friend and colleague, Ed Maibach, on Monday. He had received word that one of the articles we co-authored had been named to the 50 most read articles in the Sage journal, the American Behavioral Scientist. In fact, the article is #5 on the list, as you can see if you visit http://abs.sagepub.com/reports/mfr1.dtl

The article’s title, “Competencies for the health communication specialist of the 21st century,” gives some idea why it has been one of the most read publications. The importance of this area both theoretically and in application has been widely recognized. This has contributed to a surge in adding health communication classes to undergraduate and graduate programs around the world. And in adding these programss, the debate continues about the focus of education and training.

As I looked back at the lessons learned to develop the article, I realize that many of these competencies are ones that we all need in order to successfully navigate the health information that might only be described as overwhelming in quantity and sometimes questionable in quality. One of the competencies that health communication specialists may choose as a focus focuses on gaining access to and using various electronic databases. As we’ve discussed on this site before, we all need to harness the skills to do this. One of the most important issues remains the ability to identify the sources of these messages in order to consider the validity of their claims.

The emphasis in the article reflects the importance of understanding the role of both media and interpersonal communication on our health habits. To continue the conversation from yesterday, we too often do not seek formal health care because our family or friends don’t support doing so. And we frequently substitute care from our support networks for formal health care. In fact, one of the roles that many faith-based organizations assume relates to providing support to members sruggling with illness or recovering from events that limit their well-being. This may include injuries on the job or the death of a loved one.

Perhaps one of the most surprising and least considered areas of health communication competence relates to impression management. This, too, flows from the knowledge generated from research and practice in interpersonal communication. I reflect on my own hesitation to reveal my failure to behave in ways that I know I should. I want others to form a positive impression of me and to like me. And it carries over into health realms. Besides wanting to present our own best image, we often–with little thought–help others project their own best image. So we may fail to ask our doctor about something we thought we would be talking about in our appointment because we are thinking that to do so might seem to imply that we are ‘criticizing’ our doctor.

Other competencies related to the 21st health communication specialist that we identified more than 15 years ago that all of us will benefit from include media literacy skills associated with understanding gatekeeping relating to content. As discussed in the former post, media stories about medical research likely appear far ahead of therapies to benefit our well-being related to the research findings. Understanding that media seek to give us novel content supports our ability to reflect on the gap between a story and its translation to our care.

So a competent health communicator likely begins with our intention…to understand, to reflect, and to participate in making decisions about our health in informed ways guided by our efforts and experiences. 119_1914

Why don’t our doctors recommend ‘it’?

117_1749 February 8, 2010

The fourth chapter of my book, ‘Talking about health…why communication matters,’ provides some answers to the question, ‘Why don’t we get care?’ The discussion goes beyond the vital limitation–we don’t have access–to consider what happens when we do have access and we still don’t get health care.

The first topic discussed in response to the question, ‘why don’t we get care’ is: our doctors don’t recommend it. There exist several answers to the question, ‘Why don’t our doctors recommend it?’

One reason our doctors don’t recommend a treatment that we might expect reflects the reality that no treatment yet exists. The media story bringing to our attention a scientific discovery published in a leading journal such as the Journal of the American Medical Association or Lancet or the New England Journal of Medicine may set our expectation that the discovery translates to new treatment. It is a long journey between scientific discovery and health care.

The National Institutes of Health–which includes the National Cancer Institute, the National Eye Institute, the National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute, and others [see http://www.nih.gov/icd/index.html ] emphasizes the importance of translating discoveries to benefits for the people. But the process follows a series of steps. So, in short, our doctor cannot recommend what is not yet available. Still, it never hurts to ask in case there might be some clinical trials going on in efforts to develop treatment based on the new science. And, it can’t hurt to do a bit of sleuthing of our own on the internet to see whether the media story relates to the possibility for new treatment.

Other reasons that doctors may not recommend a treatment have to do with such realities as: time slips away during an appointment and it just didn’t get brought up. Or, the doctor planned to talk with you about a treatment but–forgot. Perhaps your doctor even said in your last appointment that she would talk with you about some other options for care at the next appointment, but then doesn’t. In all of these cases, if it is important to you, bring it up. These are ways that communication can indeed matter when talking about health.

How fear appeals affect our motivation to practice healthy habits?

A winter walk

February 7, 2010

Fear is something most of us would rather not experience. Especially when it comes to our health. Yet, so much communication about health aims to make us fearful. Why is that?

Over time, research has shown that fear can be motivating. Because we don’t want to be fearful when it comes to our health, we may take action. That is, if we know how and believe the action will actually benefit our health.

The problem with too many fear appeals aimed at our health is that they do not fulfill the task of telling us what action to take, why the action will be effective, and how we can develop the skills or gain the resources to take the action.

Take the example of skin cancer. Most of us know that too much exposure to the sun can cause this deadly disease. We also know that some sun or UV exposure helps our body make vitamin D. So how much sun is too much sun? What if we like to stay healthy by being outdoors in the sun? What if our job requires us to be in the sun? An effective fear appeal communicates about these issues and doesn’t just make us fearful about being in the sun.

So if communication about health makes you feel fearful, look for the response recommended to reduce the threat. If the message doesn’t contain that information, it’s not a very good message. But at least you will know that what to look for to control the danger posed in the message and your fear as well. A response to the threat and ways you can carry it out.

Until next time, talk about health with the ones you love. It really might be a matter of…life and death.

What is race-based medicine?

Winter afternoon January 31, 2010

Medical research has shown that there are some patterns linked to racial group categorization in how some medicines work. Some medicine may metabolize faster or slower for some racial groups–in general. Lower does of some medicne may be required for treatment of members of some racial groups–in general. Similar patterns have been observed when comparing how men and women respond to some medications or therapies–in general.

What’s wrong with talking about race-based medicine?

First, stereotypes emerge from communicating about any group as if every member of the group behaves and responds in the same way to anything. Not everyone in the group will respond as suggested.

Second, it may seem to suggest that others who are not members of the racial group are less at risk for a condition. If we are a member of a different group, we may distance ourself from feeling at risk for the condition and socially distance ourselves from those who are at risk. This may happen because communicating the medical research that finds members of a particular group seem likely to respond in a particular way may seem to suggest that anyone not mentioned is not at risk. If, for example, efforts are made to commmunicate about a particular group’s response to treatment for heart disease becomes the focus of advertisements aimed at selling the treatment to members of the group, the unintended message may be, ‘They aren’t talking about me so I have less risk for heart disease.’ When communicating about therapies for men, for example, women may have long assumed that they were not a risk for heart disease, and that, of course is not true.

Third, communicating about race-based medicine may unintentionally contribute to the formation of stereotypes. As shorthand, classifying someone as a member of a group reduces our uncertainty about how we expect he or she will ‘be.’ As a result of such communication, we may, for example, form views that all members of a particular racial group are at risk for a particular health condition.

Finally, stereotypes of others and our own feelings of social distance from them often forms the foundation for stigma…our feelings of stigma about people and conditions, and our behavior toward those we consider to be members of a stigmatized group.

In sum, communicating about race-based medicine must be done with care to achieve valuable health outcomes and to limit harmful social outcomes.

Who is the source of that information about health on the internet?

119_1916 January 19, 2010

Surveys show that most of us go to the internet to search for health information and we do it fairly often. I was reminded of that as I had one of my infrequent flair-ups of pseudogout. It has been years since I’ve had the pain and swelling in my knees and this time it affected my fingers, my wrists, and even my back. And it didn’t go away after a few days. So I went online. And I found lots of information.

How we search for health information on the internet and what we do with the information once we have it is likely to predict whether the information is going to help or harm us. We can conclude that we are not at risk based on the information and be wrong. We can conclude that we are at risk based on the information and also be wrong. So a good place to start thinking about health information found on the internet is to consider the source of the information.

First, consider the motivation of the source. In the broadest sense, .com sites are commercial, while .org sites identify organizations, and .gov sites come from the government. We usually start with a search engine such as Google to seek answers to our questions. When I did, Google health came up as the first link to information. With so many people searching for health information, I guess it isn’t too surprising that the owners of a search engine like Google might want to get in on the act…

Second, consider the expertise associated with a site. Just ‘who’ is the author of the content you are reading and applying to your health? Is it a doctor or a nurse or a physical therapist? Is the doctor speaking on behalf of research or based on experience as a doctor? Is the information just presented, so the source is just the internet with no way of knowing if there is medical research to support the claims, particular researchers presenting the claims, or doctors supporting the research conclusions. I followed the Google health link and I searched for information about the expertise. I found some information at the bottom of a loooooooong page of information. But I couldn’t trace it back to any research. So I couldn’t find out much about where all the conclusions were coming from. Health communication researchers find this to be the case time and again. Not just on the internet. In newspapers, magazines, and broadcast news reports, the expert source on which information is being based is too seldom mentioned.

Third, what part of the information is the author of the content emphasizing, and what part is not being discussed? Is the author providing information for an organization that wants them to present a particular point of view? So, they might be describing the benefits of getting care at the organization whose site they represent but not tell you that it cost more than your insurance is likely to pay. Or, they might be telling the benefits related to one type of treatment for the drug company who has paid for the site you are reading, and they likely believe in those benefits, but there may be no discussion of the risks for the treatment. So, consider not only what content is included in the information but what content might be missing as well.

Doing so should help to make the information we find useful and help us to frame additional searches for more information to fill in the missing content…