Public health is moving toward the goal of implementing evidence-based interventions. To accomplish this, there is a need to select, adapt, and evaluate intervention studies. Such selection relies, in part, on making judgments about the feasibility of possible interventions and determining whether comprehensive and multilevel evaluations are justified. There exist few published standards and guides to aid these judgments. This article describes the diverse types of feasibility studies conducted in the field of cancer prevention, using a group of recently funded grants from the National Cancer Institute. The grants were submitted in response to a request for applications proposing research to identify feasible interventions for increasing the utilization of the Cancer Information Service among underserved populations.

Health literacy is on the public health agenda. The goal to "improve the health literacy of the population" was included as an objective in Healthy People 2010 and 2020 Objectives. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine released Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion, which recommended that "the Department of Health and Human Services and other government and private funders should support research leading to the development of causal models explaining the relationship among health literacy, the education system, the health system, and relevant social and cultural systems" (Nielsen-Bohlman, Panzer & Kindig, 2004, p. 55). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' 2010 National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy reinforces the need for conceptual advances in the field by calling for the development and implementation of health literacy Health Literacy Skills Framework 31interventions on the basis of theories and models, drawing from such related disciplines as communication, education, cognitive science, and medical sociology (p. 44).Pleasant, McKinney, and Rickard (2011) indicated that there is a lack of true theoretical frameworks that explain health literacy. Theory should be the foundation for developing reliable and valid measures of health literacy, which will allow the field to better study and understand the role of health literacy in health behavior change. This lack of theory has caused researchers to define health literacy in many different ways (Peerson & Saunders, 2009) and, thus, studies vary significantly depending on the definition and measures used (DeWalt, Berkman, Sheridan, Lohr, & Pignone, 2004;Peerson & Saunders, 2009;Pignone, DeWalt, Sheridan, Berkman, & Lohr, 2005).The absence of a common definition and understanding of health literacy may have slowed the field's progress in developing measures and conducting solid methodological research. There are a variety of models and frameworks that describe factors associated with health literacy skills (Baker, 2006;Mancuso, 2008;Nutbeam, 2000;Paasche-Orlow & Wolf, 2007;von Wagner, Steptoe, Wolf & Wardle, 2009). A comprehensive health literacy theory or framework may spur more professional discussions to help lay the foundation for a new era of theory-driven research.The majority of these frameworks illustrate the effects that health literacy has on health-related outcomes (Lee, Arozullah, & Cho, 2004;Manganello, 2008;Nutbeam, 2000;Paasche-Orlow & Wolf, 2007;Rootman et al., 2002; Schillenger, 2001;von Wagner et al., 2009). However, few illustrate the full continuum of relations among predictors, moderators, mediators, and outcomes of health literacy all in one theory or framework (Pleasant, 2011). PurposeThe purpose of this article is to introduce a framework for conceptualizing health literacy that builds on existing theoretical frameworks. We undertake three activities in the article:1. First, we review and synthesize the several existing theoretical frameworks for health literacy and describe their strengths and weaknesses. 2. Se...

Few nationally representative surveys have assessed the cancer-related information seeking behavior of the American public. Data for our analysis were from the 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). The goals of our analysis were to characterize cancer information seekers (3,011) and nonseekers (3,348) in terms of sociodemographic, health care access, and health status variables, and to describe the nature of the cancer-related information being sought by information seekers. Significant and independent associations with seeking status were identified for gender, age, race, income, education, personal and family history of cancer, and having a usual source of health care. Information seekers were less likely to be male (OR = .51); aged 65 or older (OR = .40); Hispanic (OR = .60); to have a usual source of health care (OR = .70); and more likely to have incomes greater than $50,000 (OR = 1.50), some college (OR = 1.87) or a college degree (OR = 2.95), a prior cancer diagnosis (OR = 3.57), or a family history of cancer (OR = 2.17). Among cancer information seekers, the most frequently searched topic was cancer site-specific information (50.2%). Individuals who reported searching for cancer site-specific information were most frequently looking for information about breast cancer (23.8%), prostate cancer (11.5%), and skin cancer (11.3%). The HINTS survey provides a unique opportunity to explore the characteristics of information seekers and nonseekers and the content of information being sought by the public in a nationally representative sample; understanding gained from this effort provides generalizable and policy-relevant information about the American public's information needs.

Engaging individuals with cancer in decision making about their treatments has received increased attention; shared decision making (SDM) has become a hallmark of patient-centered care. Although physicians indicate substantial interest in SDM, implementing SDM in cancer care is often complex; high levels of uncertainty may exist, and health care providers must help patients understand the potential risks versus benefits of different treatment options. However, patients who are more engaged in their health care decision making are more likely to experience confidence in and satisfaction with treatment decisions and increased trust in their providers. To implement SDM in oncology practice, physicians and other health care providers need to understand the components of SDM and the approaches to supporting and facilitating this process as part of cancer care. This review summarizes recent information regarding patient and physician factors that influence SDM for cancer care, outcomes resulting from successful SDM, and strategies for implementing SDM in oncology practice. We present a conceptual model illustrating the components of SDM in cancer care and provide recommendations for facilitating SDM in oncology practice.

Background As COVID-19 vaccine distribution efforts continue, public health workers can strategize about vaccine promotion in an effort to increase willingness among those who may be hesitant. Methods In April 2020, we surveyed a national probability sample of 2279 U.S. adults using an online panel recruited through address-based sampling. Households received a computer and internet access if needed to participate in the panel. Participants were invited via e-mail and answered online survey questions about their willingness to get a novel coronavirus vaccine when one became available. The survey was completed in English and Spanish. We report weighted percentages. Results Most respondents were willing to get the vaccine for themselves (75%) or their children (73%). Notably, Black respondents were less willing than White respondents (47% vs. 79%, p < 0.001), while Hispanic respondents were more willing than White respondents (80% vs. 75%, p < 0.003). Females were less likely than makes (72% vs. 79%, p < 0.001). Those without insurance were less willing than the insured (47% vs. 78%, p < 0.001). Willingness to vaccinate was higher for those age 65 and older than for some younger age groups (85% for those 65 and older vs. 75% for those 50–64, p < 0.017; 72% for those 35–49, p < 0.002; 70% for those 25–34, p = NS and 75% for ages 18–24, p = NS), but other groups at increased risk because of underlying medical conditions or morbid obesity were not more willing to get vaccinated than their lower risk counterparts. Conclusions Most Americans were willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, but several vulnerable populations reported low willingness. Public health efforts should address these gaps as national implementation efforts continue.