Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trusting information on cancer varies by source of information and political viewpoint

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigated how trusting information on cancer varies by the source of information and political viewpoint.

Methods

This study used cross-sectional survey data from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). The study comprised a sample of 2949 adults 18 years and older. The outcome variable was measured by assessing respondents’ trust in cancer-related information from various sources, including religious organizations and leaders, government health agencies, charitable organizations, family or friends, and doctors. Political viewpoint was measured as liberal, moderate, and conservative. Multivariate linear probability models were estimated and adjusted for individual-level characteristics.

Results

Multivariate analysis found that conservatives (73%, 95% CI = 68–78%) were significantly less likely to trust information on cancer from government health agencies compared to liberals (84%, 95% CI = 80–88%). There was no statistically significant difference in trusting government health agencies between liberals and moderates (80%, 95% CI = 76–84%). Both moderates (27%, 95% CI = 21–34%) and conservatives (34%, 95% CI = 29–39%) were more likely to trust information on cancer from religious organizations and leaders compared to liberals (19%, 95% CI = 13–24%). The relationship between political viewpoint and trust of doctors, family or friends, and charitable organizations were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Compared to liberals, conservatives are more likely to trust information on cancer from religious organizations and leaders and less likely to trust government health agencies when adjusting for other covariates. This finding emphasizes the role of political viewpoint in shaping individuals’ perceptions of information sources and cancer-related information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are publicly available from the National Cancer Institute https://hints.cancer.gov/.

References

  1. Lalazaryan A, Zare-Farashbandi F (2014) A review of models and theories of health information seeking behavior. Int J Health Syst Disaster Manage 2(4):193–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Johnson JD, Meischke H (1993) A comprehensive model of cancer-related information seeking applied to magazines. Hum Commun Res 19(3):343–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Xiao Z, Lee J, Zeng L, Ni L (2020) Information seeking in the context of cigarette smoking: predictors from the comprehensive model of information seeking (CMIS). Psychol Health Med 25(10):1228–1246

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jackson DN, Peterson EB, Blake KD, Coa K, Chou WY (2019) Americans’ trust in health information sources: trends and sociodemographic predictors. Am J Health Promot 33(8):1187–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fareed N, Jonnalagadda P, Swoboda CM, Samineni P, Griesenbrock T, Huerta T (2021) Socioeconomic factors influence health information seeking and trust over time: evidence from a cross-sectional, pooled analyses of HINTS data. Am J Health Promot 35(8):1084–1094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fareed N, Swoboda CM, Jonnalagadda P, Walker DM, Huerta TR (2021) Differences between races in health information seeking and trust over time: evidence from a cross-sectional, pooled analyses of HINTS data. Am J Health Promot 35(1):84–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Williams JS, Fong-Gurzinsky J, Nagavally S, Walker RJ, Asan O, Ozieh MN, Egede LE (2021) Preferences in trust regarding the provision of cancer information among adults. J Natl Med Assoc 113(4):457–464

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wheldon CW, Carroll KT, Moser RP (2020) Trust in health information sources among underserved and vulnerable populations in the US. J Health Care Poor Underserved 31(3):1471–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Richardson A, Allen JA, Xiao H, Vallone D (2012) Effects of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status on health information-seeking, confidence, and trust. J Health Care Poor Underserved 23(4):1477–1493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Camacho-Rivera M, Gonzalez CJ, Morency JA, Blake KD, Calixte R (2020) Heterogeneity in trust of cancer information among hispanic adults in the United States: an analysis of the health information national trends survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 29(7):1348–1356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alcalá HE, Sharif MZ, Morey BN (2017) Misplaced trust: racial differences in use of tobacco products and trust in sources of tobacco health information. Nicotine Tob Res 19(10):1199–1208

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ye Y (2010) A path analysis on correlates of consumer trust in online health information: evidence from the health information national trends survey. J Health Commun 15(sup3):200–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sacca L, Maroun V, Khoury M (2022) Predictors of high trust and the role of confidence levels in seeking cancer-related information. Inform Health Soc Care 47(1):53–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peterson EB, Chou WY, Kelley DE, Hesse B (2020) Trust in national health information sources in the United States: comparing predictors and levels of trust across three health domains. Transl Behav Med 10(4):978–988

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hong H, Oh HJ (2020) The effects of patient-centered communication: exploring the mediating role of trust in healthcare providers. Health Commun 35(4):502–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kiviniemi MT, Orom H, Hay JL, Waters EA (2022) Prevention is political: political party affiliation predicts perceived risk and prevention behaviors for COVID-19. BMC Public Health 22(1):298

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gollwitzer A, Martel C, Brady WJ, Pärnamets P, Freedman IG, Knowles ED, Van Bavel JJ (2020) Partisan differences in physical distancing are linked to health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat Hum Behav 4(11):1186–1197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baumgaertner B, Carlisle JE, Justwan F (2018) The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate. PLoS One 13(1):e0191728

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Stupiansky NW, Rosenthal SL, Wiehe SE, Zimet GD (2010) Human papillomavirus vaccine acceptability among a national sample of adult women in the USA. Sex Health 7(3):304–309. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH09127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cox S, Brown J, McQuire C, de Vocht F, Beard E, West R, Shahab L (2021) Association between cigarette smoking status and voting intentions: cross sectional surveys in England 2015–2020. BMC Public Health 21(1):2254. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12304-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. National Cancer Institute (2020) Health information national trends survey 5 (HINTS 5), Cycle 4 methodology report. https://hints.cancer.gov/data/methodology-reports.aspx Accessed December 2020.

  22. Doherty C, Kiley J, Asheer N, Jordan C (2021) Beyond red vs. blue: the political typology. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hout M (2021) America’s liberal social climate and trends: change in 283 general social survey variables between and within US birth cohorts, 1972–2018. Pub Opin Q 85(4):1009–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dimock M, Kiley J, Keeter S, Doherty C (2014) Political polarization in the American public: how increasing ideological uniformity and partisan antipathy affect politics, compromise and everyday life. Pew Res Cent June 12, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

  25. Markus HR, Conner A, Clash! (2014) How to thrive in a multicultural world. Penguin, Westminster, p 24

    Google Scholar 

  26. Grafstein R (2005) The impact of employment status on voting behavior. J Politics 67(3):804–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA

    Jim P. Stimpson & Sandi L. Pruitt

  2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Sungchul Park

  3. Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA

    Sandi L. Pruitt

Authors
  1. Jim P. Stimpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sungchul Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandi L. Pruitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Data analysis was performed by JS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JS and SP and SP commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jim P. Stimpson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interest

Jim Stimpson and Sungchul Park have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Unrelated to this work, Sandi Pruitt receives consulting fees from Pfizer.

Ethical approval

This is an observational study that used publicly available data. The university institutional review board has confirmed that no ethical approval is required.

Consent to participate

Not appliable because publicly available data without personal identifiers were analyzed

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stimpson, J.P., Park, S. & Pruitt, S.L. Trusting information on cancer varies by source of information and political viewpoint. Cancer Causes Control 35, 177–184 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01786-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-023-01786-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation