Back

Health Information Seeking Experiences Among People with Disabilities: Results from the HINTS 2024

Velat, M.; James, T. G.

2025-10-15 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.10.14.25338014 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPeople with disabilities (PWDs) face disparities in the healthcare system that lead to poorer health outcomes. A lack of health information and accessible communication with healthcare professionals is linked to these health inequities. PWDs report lower health literacy, technology use, and different access needs that limit effective health-related communication. Due to the broad spectrum of disabilities, the barriers PWDs face with accessing health information vary greatly. MethodsWe conducted an existing data analysis using the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) conducted in 2024. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) using logistic regression for five different cancer-related health information outcomes among US civilian, non-institutionalized adults who included disability status (weighted n=250,488,318). ResultsPrimary findings indicated that PWDs--especially those with multiple disabilities, chronic pain, or deafness--had disparities in their health information seeking experiences compared to people without disabilities. People with multiple disabilities had higher odds of reporting frustration and difficulty understanding health information, as well as not searching for health information in the first place. ConclusionPeople with disabilities experience barriers to seeking health information but these barriers differ on the type of disability. This study is novel in the ability to compare different types of disabilities to different health information outcomes, but true disability representation is likely not possible due to inaccessible survey design. The findings in this study highlight the need for accessible health information, surveys, and more interventions that include PWDs in public health programming.

Matching journals

The top 9 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.