ArticlePeerJ2019
The extent to which cancer patients trust in cancer-related online information: a systematic review.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing the e-health literacy in cancer patients: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Pooled it
- Characteristics of digital health technophobia and associated factors in older cancer patients: a latent profile analysis.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Is This the Right Link? How TikTok Views Oncoplastic Breast Surgery.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Factors Associated With the Level of Trust in Health Information Robots Among the General Population From a Socioecological Model Perspective: Network Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The influences of acculturation strategies on physician trust among internal migrants in Shanghai, China: a cross-sectional study in 2021.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Segmented assimilation trajectories of physician trust among internal migrants in Shanghai, China: A cross-sectional study.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of ChatGPT as a Patient Education Tool in Prostate Cancer: Multimetric Assessment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Talking with clinicians about online cancer information: a survey of cancer patients and surrogate information seekers.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- AYAs' online information and eHealth needs: A comparison with healthcare professionals' perceptions.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Observational
- Article
- Transitioning from heparin to saline locks for central venous access devices in oncology: An evidence-based practice approach.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2022Article
- Patients With Cancer Searching for Cancer- or Health-Specific Web-Based Information: Performance Test Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- An online review of informational sources for advanced or high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Review
- Barriers and Facilitators of Shared Decision Making in Prostate Cancer Treatment Among African American Men.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of the internet to satisfy information needs is widespread among cancer patients. Patients' decisions regarding whether to act upon the information they find strongly depend on the trustworthiness of the information and the medium. Patients who are younger, more highly educated and female are more likely to trust online information. The objectives of this systematic review were to examine the extent to which cancer patients trust in cancer-related online information, internet websites as a source of cancer-related information or the internet as a medium of cancer information.
methodsA systematic review was conducted using five databases (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017070190). Studies of any kind were included if they measured cancer patients' trust in online health information. Study quality was assessed using the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) item bank. A narrative synthesis was undertaken to examine the included studies.
resultsOf the 7,314 citations obtained by the search, seven cross-sectional studies were included in the synthesis. A total of 1,054 patients reported having some or a great deal of trust in online cancer information; 154 patients reported moderately trusting such information; and 833 patients reported having no or little trust in online cancer information, internet websites as a source of cancer-related information or the internet as a medium of cancer-related information. Two of the seven studies reported between group comparisons for the above-stated patient characteristics. The methodological quality of the included studies was diverse.
conclusionThe results of the included studies indicates that approximately half of cancer patients appear to trust cancer-specific online information, internet websites as a source of cancer-related information or the internet as an information medium. However, the small number of included studies, high heterogeneity of participants, methods and outcomes calls for further systematic research. It is important to understand that cancer patients do and will increasingly use trusted cancer information websites to search for information concerning their disease. Therefore, physicians and other health care providers should provide more support and advice to these patients.
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.