Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30552257›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Development of a tool to assess beliefs about mythical causes of cancer: the Cancer Awareness Measure Mythical Causes Scale.

Samuel G Smith, Emma Beard, Jennifer A McGowan, Emma Fox, Chloe Cook, Radhika Pal, Jo Waller, Lion Shahab

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Samuel G SmithLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Emma BeardResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jennifer A McGowanResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Emma FoxDivision of General Internal Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Chloe CookShift Design, London, UK.
Radhika PalResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jo WallerResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Lion ShahabResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134Cancer Research UK 17965Cancer Research UK 20811Cancer Research UK C42785/A17965Cancer Research UK C42785/A20811Cancer Research UK C7492/A17219Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to develop a reliable and valid measure to assess public beliefs in mythical causes of cancer: the Cancer Awareness Measure-MYthical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS). DESIGN AND

settingCancer myth items were generated from a literature review, social media and interviews (n=16). The CAM-MYCS was prepared by reducing items using (a) an online sample (n=527) with exploratory factor analysis and (b) cancer experts with Delhpi methodology (n=13). To assess test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change, students (n=91) completed the CAM-MYCS at baseline and 1 week after exposure to information on lifestyle-related cancer causes or control information. Construct validity was tested by comparing CAM-MYCS scores between cancer experts (n=25) and students (n=91). Factor structure and internal reliability were investigated in a national sample (n=1993).

resultsOut of 42 items generated, 12 were retained based on factor loadings, prevalence of endorsement and expert consensus. CAM-MYCS scores improved (fewer myths endorsed) among students exposed to information on cancer causes compared with the control group (p<0.001) and showed high test-retest reliability (r=0.90, p<0.001). Cancer experts reported higher CAM-MYCS scores (fewer myths endorsed) than students (p<0.001). The factor structure of the CAM-MYCS was confirmed in the national sample and internal reliability was high (α=0.86). Inclusion of the CAM-MYCS alongside items assessing knowledge of actual cancer causes did not affect responses.

conclusionsThe CAM-MYCS tool is a reliable and valid tool assessing beliefs in mythical causes of cancer, and it can be used alongside items assessing known causes of cancer.

Indexed as

AwarenessCultureMythologyNeoplasmsPublic OpinionRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Agedcancercancer beliefscancer mythsmeasurement

Identifiers

PMID30552257
PMCPMC6303629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.