Analysis reveals unmet social needs lower trust in cancer information from doctors and government agencies, suggesting a need for better support.
Background Trust in public health messaging bolsters participation in preventive services like cancer screening and vaccination. Social inequality may drive mistrust in health authorities, but little is known about this relationship in the context of cancer messaging. Aims To examine associations between unmet social needs and trust in sources of cancer information using nationally representative data. Methods Data were from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey. The main exposure was number of unmet social needs (0, 1 or ≥ 2), tabulated from survey items on housing, transportation and food insecurity. Dependent variables included binary indicators of trust (high vs. low) in cancer information from doctors, scientists and government agencies, and trust in the healthcare system overall. Associations were evaluated using survey‐weighted multivariable logistic regression with adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics. Results Doctors were the most trusted source of cancer information (72.6%), followed by scientists (56.9%) and government agencies (29.2%). Unmet social needs were associated with reduced trust in cancer information from doctors; in adjusted models, the odds were 39% lower (aOR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.43–0.86) for respondents with 1 unmet need, and 51% lower (aOR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.35–0.70) for those with ≥ 2 relative to those with none. A minority (36.1%) of respondents reported high trust in the healthcare system overall, with 61% lower odds among those with ≥ 2 unmet needs (aOR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.25–0.62). Conclusion Unmet social needs were associated with reduced trust in cancer information from doctors and the healthcare system. Addressing social needs in the clinical setting may enhance patient trust in cancer messaging from providers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bispo et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: