ArticleBMC cancer2014
Development of a scale to assess cancer stigma in the non-patient population.
Article in BMC cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions to Reduce Lung Cancer and COPD-Related Stigma: A Systematic Review.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Increased Knowledge Mediates the Effect of Game Changers for Cervical Cancer Prevention on Diffusion of Cervical Cancer Screening Advocacy Among Social Network Members in a Pilot Trial.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2024Trial
- Effects of a peer advocacy intervention on cervical cancer screening among social network members: results of a randomized controlled trial in Uganda.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Integrating the Health Belief Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior to Decode Willingness to Pay for Cancer Screening: Evidence From Community-Based Cross-Sectional Surveys in China.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing Rural Breast Cancer Screening Uptake: A Three-Arm Comparative Study of Outreach Strategies.International journal of breast cancer · 2026Article
- Impact of cervical cancer-related stigma on screening uptake in Dakar and Kedougou, Senegal: A context-specific stigma index.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Exploring breast cancer stigma among medical students in Egypt: a national multi-center cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Relationship Between Supportive Care Needs and Stigma in Women With Breast Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Experience of healthcare discrimination reported by individuals with a history of gynecologic cancer in theGynecologic oncology reports · 2025Article
- Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the breast cancer stigma assessment scale among Chinese patients.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Development and psychometric evaluation of the Infertility Public Stigma Scale for Japanese women: protocol for an exploratory sequential mixed method study of the Japanese population.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Cultural shifts: an examination of cervical cancer stigma across age groups in the Caribbean.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Article
- Global cancer stigma research: a U.S. National Cancer Institute workshop report.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2024Article
- Effects of stigma on quality of life of cancer survivors: Preliminary evidence from a survivorship programme in Kenya.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Measurement of cancer stigma in India: challenges and opportunities.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2024Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of Cancer Stigma among Non-Patient Population in Oman.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Review
- Culturally-informed adaptation and psychometric properties of the Cataldo Cancer Stigma Scale in Northern Tanzania.Journal of psychosocial oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIllness-related stigma has attracted considerable research interest, but few studies have specifically examined stigmatisation of cancer in the non-patient population. The present study developed and validated a Cancer Stigma Scale (CASS) for use in the general population.
methodsAn item pool was developed on the basis of previous research into illness-related stigma in the general population and patients with cancer. Two studies were carried out. The first study used Exploratory factor analysis to explore the structure of items in a sample of 462 postgraduate students recruited through a London university. The second study used Confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the structure among 238 adults recruited through an online market research panel. Internal reliability, test-retest reliability and construct validity were also assessed.
resultsExploratory factor analysis suggested six subscales, representing: Awkwardness, Severity, Avoidance, Policy Opposition, Personal Responsibility and Financial Discrimination. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed this structure with a 25-item scale. All subscales showed adequate to good internal and test-retest reliability in both samples. Construct validity was also good, with mean scores for each subscale varying in the expected directions by age, gender, experience of cancer, awareness of lifestyle risk factors for cancer, and social desirability. Means for the subscales were consistent across the two samples.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the complexity of cancer stigma and provide the Cancer Stigma Scale (CASS) which can be used to compare populations, types of cancer and evaluate the effects of interventions designed to reduce cancer stigma in non-patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.