Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29479993›Full record

ArticleAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2018

Beliefs Underlying Messages of Anti-Cancer-Screening Websites in Japan: A Qualitative Analysis

Tsuyoshi Okuhara, Hirono Ishikawa, Masahumi Okada, Mio Kato, Takahiro Kiuchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tsuyoshi OkuharaDepartment of Health Communication, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8655, Japan. Email: okuhara-ctr@umin.ac.jp
Hirono Ishikawa
Masahumi Okada
Mio Kato
Takahiro Kiuchi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Cancer screening rates are lower in Japan than in Western countries. Meanwhile, anti-cancer-screening activists take to the internet to spread their messages that cancer screening has little or no efficacy, poses substantial health risks such as side effects from radiation exposure, and that people should forgo cancer screening. We applied a qualitative approach to explore the beliefs underlying the messages of anti-cancer-screening websites, by focusing on perceived value the beliefs provided to those who held them. Methods: We conducted online searches using Google Japan and Yahoo! Japan, targeting websites we classified as “pro,” “anti,” or “neutral” depending on their claims. We applied a dual analytic approach- inductive thematic analysis and deductive interpretative analysis- to the textual data of the anti websites. Results: Of the 88 websites analyzed, five themes that correspond to beliefs were identified: destruction of common knowledge, denial of standard cancer control, education about right cancer control, education about hidden truths, and sense of superiority that only I know the truth. Authors of anti websites ascribed two values (“safety of people” and “self-esteem”) to their beliefs. Conclusion: The beliefs of authors of anti-cancer-screening websites were supposed to be strong. It would be better to target in cancer screening promotion not outright screening refusers but screening hesitant people who are more amenable to changing their attitudes toward screening. The possible means to persuade them were discussed.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthCultureHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeEarly Detection of CancerHumansInternetJapanNeoplasmsPrognosisbeliefCancer screeninginternetonlinequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID29479993
PMCPMC5980930

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.