Communication ResearchNCT04247529
Effects of Prior Exposure to Conflicting Health Information on Responses to Subsequent Unrelated Health Messages
A study testing Exposure to conflicting health information and No exposure to conflicting health information in people with Communication Research, run by University of Minnesota at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Many population-level public health strategies-including media campaigns and other behavioral interventions, screening recommendations, and vaccination policies-rely on messaging to promote cancer prevention and control. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Communication Research
- What is being tested?
- Exposure to conflicting health information and No exposure to conflicting health information
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 6,046 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 20 Jul 2020to 31 Aug 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 18+ U.S. adults
- Members of NORC's AmeriSpeak Panel (https://amerispeak.norc.org/Pages/default.aspx)
- Able to complete web-based survey
- Able to read in English
Who cannot join
- None
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
NORC at the University of Chicago (online only)
Chicago, Illinois, 60603
About this study
Many population-level public health strategies-including media campaigns and other behavioral interventions, screening recommendations, and vaccination policies-rely on messaging to promote cancer prevention and control. These strategies do not take place in a vacuum; rather, they occur in the context of a broader public information environment, which is increasingly characterized by conflicting and often controversial health information. Although studies have documented that such information is prevalent, a critical question remains unanswered: does exposure to conflicting health information in people's routine interactions with the broader information environment threaten the success of message-based population-level public health strategies? And, if so, who is most susceptible to the effects of such exposure? This study will provide a rigorous empirical test of these critical answered questions, guided by two specific aims: First, to evaluate whether prior exposure to conflicting health information influences responses to subsequent unrelated and uncontested health messages, a phenomenon that has been described as "carryover effects" (Primary Aim); and second, to identify whether there are individual-level differences in how conflict affects responses to these unrelated and uncontested health messages (Secondary Aim).
Read the detailed description
To accomplish these aims, an online survey-based experiment using a population-based sample of U.S. adults (anticipated N=1,800) will be conducted. At 2 time points across a 28-day period, participants will be exposed to news stories and social media posts about 6 health topics: mammography screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, Vitamin D supplementation, carbohydrate consumption, alcohol consumption, and breastfeeding. Participants will be randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups that differ only in the amount of conflict presented in these news and social media posts (conflict, no conflict). At a third time point, after the exposure to conflict period, all participants will be exposed to 3 (out of a possible 9) messages from existing health campaigns about 3 behaviors for which there is scientific consensus: fruit and vegetable consumption, colorectal cancer screening, and physical activity. To assess carryover effects (Primary Aim), participants' receptivity to these messages-as measured through several affective and cognitive responses (e.g., confidence in the evidence presented)-will be measured. Message receptivity is expected to be lower among those who were randomized to receive conflicting health information. Individual-level differences in message receptivity are possible; thus exploratory analyses (Secondary Aim) will be conducted to assess whether carryover effects of exposure to conflict may be more pronounced among certain groups (e.g., those with greater trust in media sources, those of lower socioeconomic position).
- Conditions
- Communication Research
- Being tested
- Exposure to conflicting health information, No exposure to conflicting health information
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Exposure to conflicting health informationOther
At 2 time points across a ~28-day period, participants will be exposed to news stories and social media posts about 6 health topics: mammography screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, Vitamin D supplementation, carbohydrate consumption, alcohol consumption, and breastfeeding. Participants in the conflict (experimental) group will have conflicting information added to these news and social media posts.
No exposure to conflicting health informationOther
At 2 time points across a ~28-day period, participants will be exposed to news stories and social media posts about 6 health topics: mammography screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, Vitamin D supplementation, carbohydrate consumption, alcohol consumption, and breastfeeding. Participants in the no conflict (comparator) group will have no conflicting information included in these news and social media posts.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| No exposure to conflict | Placebo comparator | Not described Receives: Other: No exposure to conflicting health information |
| Exposure to conflict | Experimental | Not described Receives: Other: Exposure to conflicting health information |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Negative affective responses
- Participants are asked to indicate how "the ad you just saw made you feel"
- 7 affective responses are randomly ordered: interested, frustrated, surprised, annoyed, distressed, optimistic, worried (response options: 1 "very slightly or not at all" to 5 "extremely")
Measured: Up to 42 days
Counterarguing
- Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with 4 statements (randomly ordered; response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"):
- "I found myself agreeing with the ad" (reverse coded)
- "I thought of points that went against what the ad was saying"
- "I accepted the ad's claims" (reverse coded)
- "While reading the ad, I was skeptical of its claims"
Measured: Up to 42 days
Reactance/threat to freedom
- Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the following statement (response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): "I felt like the ad was trying to manipulate me"
Measured: Up to 42 days
Other negative cognitive responses to ad claims
- Participants are asked to indicate whether "the claims in the ad I just saw are" (randomly ordered; response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): exaggerated, flawed, believable (reverse coded), reasonable (reverse coded)
Measured: Up to 42 days
Perceived argument strength
- Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with 2 statements (randomly ordered; response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"):
- "The ad was convincing"
- "The ad gave me a strong reason to [engage in the behavior specified in the ad]"
Measured: Up to 42 days
Response efficacy
- Participants are asked to respond to two items, presented in random order:
- "How confident are you that there is evidence to support the ad's claims?" (1 "not confident at all" to 7 "extremely confident")
- "How much do you think your health would benefit if you [engaged in the behavior specified in the ad]?" (1 "not at all" to 7 "extremely")
Measured: Up to 42 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Jan 2020
- Study start20 Jul 2020
- Primary completion31 Aug 2020
- Study completion31 Aug 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Communication ResearchStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of MinnesotaThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 6,046 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Minnesota
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Cancer Institute (NCI)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04247529
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2019NTLS140
- Other IDs
- R21CA218054
- Status last verified
- Nov 2020
- First submitted
- 16 Jan 2020
- Last updated
- 10 Nov 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: Within one year of study completion, the final, cleaned, de-identified study dataset may be made available to third-party users under a data-sharing agreement that provides for: 1) a commitment to using the data only for research purposes; 2) a commitment to securing the data using appropriate information technology; and 3) a commitment to destroying or returning the data after analyses are completed. Requests for data sharing will be considered by the investigator team via in-person meetings and approved by consensus; meeting minutes will be taken to ensure transparent decision making and conflict of interest avoidance.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 10 Nov 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Prior Exposure to Conflicting Health Information on Responses to Subsequent Unrelated Health Messages
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04247529
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2019NTLS140
- Conditions
- Communication Research
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 6,046 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of MinnesotaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Cancer Institute (NCI)
- Study start
- 20 Jul 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Aug 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Aug 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 30 Jan 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Many population-level public health strategies-including media campaigns and other behavioral interventions, screening recommendations, and vaccination policies-rely on messaging to promote cancer prevention and control. These strategies do not take place in a vacuum; rather, they occur in the context of a broader public information environment, which is increasingly characterized by conflicting and often controversial health information. Although studies have documented that such information is prevalent, a critical question remains unanswered: does exposure to conflicting health information in people's routine interactions with the broader information environment threaten the success of message-based population-level public health strategies? And, if so, who is most susceptible to the effects of such exposure? This study will provide a rigorous empirical test of these critical answered questions, guided by two specific aims: First, to evaluate whether prior exposure to conflicting health information influences responses to subsequent unrelated and uncontested health messages, a phenomenon that has been described as "carryover effects" (Primary Aim); and second, to identify whether there are individual-level differences in how conflict affects responses to these unrelated and uncontested health messages (Secondary Aim).
Detailed description
To accomplish these aims, an online survey-based experiment using a population-based sample of U.S. adults (anticipated N=1,800) will be conducted. At 2 time points across a 28-day period, participants will be exposed to news stories and social media posts about 6 health topics: mammography screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, Vitamin D supplementation, carbohydrate consumption, alcohol consumption, and breastfeeding. Participants will be randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups that differ only in the amount of conflict presented in these news and social media posts (conflict, no conflict). At a third time point, after the exposure to conflict period, all participants will be exposed to 3 (out of a possible 9) messages from existing health campaigns about 3 behaviors for which there is scientific consensus: fruit and vegetable consumption, colorectal cancer screening, and physical activity. To assess carryover effects (Primary Aim), participants' receptivity to these messages-as measured through several affective and cognitive responses (e.g., confidence in the evidence presented)-will be measured. Message receptivity is expected to be lower among those who were randomized to receive conflicting health information. Individual-level differences in message receptivity are possible; thus exploratory analyses (Secondary Aim) will be conducted to assess whether carryover effects of exposure to conflict may be more pronounced among certain groups (e.g., those with greater trust in media sources, those of lower socioeconomic position).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| No exposure to conflict | Placebo comparator | Other: No exposure to conflicting health information |
| Exposure to conflict | Experimental | Other: Exposure to conflicting health information |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 18+ U.S. adults
- Members of NORC's AmeriSpeak Panel (https://amerispeak.norc.org/Pages/default.aspx)
- Able to complete web-based survey
- Able to read in English
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Exposure to conflicting health informationAt 2 time points across a ~28-day period, participants will be exposed to news stories and social media posts about 6 health topics: mammography screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, Vitamin D supplementation, carbohydrate consumption, alcohol consumption, and breastfeeding. Participants in the conflict (experimental) group will have conflicting information added to these news and social media posts. | Other | Exposure to conflict |
| No exposure to conflicting health informationAt 2 time points across a ~28-day period, participants will be exposed to news stories and social media posts about 6 health topics: mammography screening, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, Vitamin D supplementation, carbohydrate consumption, alcohol consumption, and breastfeeding. Participants in the no conflict (comparator) group will have no conflicting information included in these news and social media posts. | Other | No exposure to conflict |
Primary outcome
Negative affective responses
Time frame: Up to 42 days
* Participants are asked to indicate how "the ad you just saw made you feel" * 7 affective responses are randomly ordered: interested, frustrated, surprised, annoyed, distressed, optimistic, worried (response options: 1 "very slightly or not at all" to 5 "extremely")
Counterarguing
Time frame: Up to 42 days
• Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with 4 statements (randomly ordered; response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): * "I found myself agreeing with the ad" (reverse coded) * "I thought of points that went against what the ad was saying" * "I accepted the ad's claims" (reverse coded) * "While reading the ad, I was skeptical of its claims"
Reactance/threat to freedom
Time frame: Up to 42 days
• Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the following statement (response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): "I felt like the ad was trying to manipulate me"
Other negative cognitive responses to ad claims
Time frame: Up to 42 days
• Participants are asked to indicate whether "the claims in the ad I just saw are" (randomly ordered; response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): exaggerated, flawed, believable (reverse coded), reasonable (reverse coded)
Perceived argument strength
Time frame: Up to 42 days
• Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with 2 statements (randomly ordered; response options: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"): * "The ad was convincing" * "The ad gave me a strong reason to [engage in the behavior specified in the ad]"
Response efficacy
Time frame: Up to 42 days
• Participants are asked to respond to two items, presented in random order: * "How confident are you that there is evidence to support the ad's claims?" (1 "not confident at all" to 7 "extremely confident") * "How much do you think your health would benefit if you [engaged in the behavior specified in the ad]?" (1 "not at all" to 7 "extremely")
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 10 Nov 2020.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. Within one year of study completion, the final, cleaned, de-identified study dataset may be made available to third-party users under a data-sharing agreement that provides for: 1) a commitment to using the data only for research purposes; 2) a commitment to securing the data using appropriate information technology; and 3) a commitment to destroying or returning the data after analyses are completed. Requests for data sharing will be considered by the investigator team via in-person meetings and approved by consensus; meeting minutes will be taken to ensure transparent decision making and conflict of interest avoidance.
Related trials for Communication Research
RecruitingObservational study
Pediatric Research in the Outpatient Setting CoHort
Parental Stress, Communication Disorder, Childhood
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
PREVENT HPV -Related Cancers Trial
HPV Vaccination, Uptake Vaccination
RecruitingObservational study
Collection of Clinical Data and Specimens for Research in Hearing, Balance, Taste, Smell, Voice, Speech, and Language Disorders.
Hearing Loss, Deafness
Recruiting
Evaluating AI for the Translation of KM Resources
Communication Research
Recruiting
Empower EI: Comparing Early Intervention Approaches to Improve Communication in Toddlers With Developmental Delays
Developmental Delays
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Exposure to conflicting health information and No exposure to conflicting health information in people with Communication Research, run by University of Minnesota at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 10 Nov 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Negative affective responses (time frame: Up to 42 days). The study lists 6 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 10 Nov 2020.