Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37505790›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2023

Exposure and Reactions to Cancer Treatment Misinformation and Advice: Survey Study.

Allison J Lazard, Sydney Nicolla, Rhyan N Vereen, Shanetta Pendleton, Marjory Charlot, Hung-Jui Tan, Dominic DiFranzo, Marlyn Pulido, Nabarun Dasgupta

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
16.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A Health Media Literacy Intervention Increases Skepticism of Both Inaccurate and Accurate Cancer News Among U.S. Adults.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2024
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Women's Lived Experiences in the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Breast Cancer Management: A Phenomenological Study.Journal of holistic nursing : official journal of the American Holistic Nurses' Association · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cancer misinformation on social media.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians
    Review
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Allison J Lazard *Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2502-2850
Sydney NicollaHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hll, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3167-6623
Rhyan N VereenHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hll, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0519-0053
Shanetta PendletonHussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hll, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7570-0974
Marjory CharlotLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8773-0425
Hung-Jui TanLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9681-4919
Dominic DiFranzoP.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied Science, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6039-1806
Marlyn PulidoLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9038-9125
Nabarun DasguptaGillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4098-605X
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USLehigh University · US

Funding

Cancer Health Disparities Training ProgramT32CA128582 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SMITH, JENNIFER SUSAN, TATE, DEBORAH F. · 2009 to 2023
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA128582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer treatment misinformation, or false claims about alternative cures, often spreads faster and farther than true information on social media. Cancer treatment misinformation can harm the psychosocial and physical health of individuals with cancer and their cancer care networks by causing distress and encouraging people to abandon support, potentially leading to deviations from evidence-based care. There is a pressing need to understand how cancer treatment misinformation is shared and uncover ways to reduce misinformation.

objectiveWe aimed to better understand exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation, including the willingness of study participants to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share Instagram posts with cancer treatment misinformation.

methodsWe conducted a survey on cancer treatment misinformation among US adults in December 2021. Participants reported their exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation generally (saw or heard, source, type of advice, and curiosity) and specifically on social media (platform, believability). Participants were then randomly assigned to view 1 of 3 cancer treatment misinformation posts or an information post and asked to report their willingness to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share.

resultsAmong US adult participants (N=603; mean age 46, SD 18.83 years), including those with cancer and cancer caregivers, almost 1 in 4 (142/603, 23.5%) received advice about alternative ways to treat or cure cancer. Advice was primarily shared through family (39.4%) and friends (37.3%) for digestive (30.3%) and natural (14.1%) alternative cancer treatments, which generated curiosity among most recipients (106/142, 74.6%). More than half of participants (337/603, 55.9%) saw any cancer treatment misinformation on social media, with significantly higher exposure for those with cancer (53/109, 70.6%) than for those without cancer (89/494, 52.6%; P<.001). Participants saw cancer misinformation on Facebook (39.8%), YouTube (27%), Instagram (22.1%), and TikTok (14.1%), among other platforms. Participants (429/603, 71.1%) thought cancer treatment misinformation was true, at least sometimes, on social media. More than half (357/603, 59.2%) were likely to share any cancer misinformation posts shown. Many participants (412/603, 68.3%) were willing to prosocially intervene for any cancer misinformation posts, including flagging the cancer treatment misinformation posts as false (49.7%-51.4%) or reporting them to the platform (48.1%-51.4%). Among the participants, individuals with cancer and those who identified as Black or Hispanic reported greater willingness to intervene to reduce cancer misinformation but also higher intentions to share misinformation.

conclusionsCancer treatment misinformation reaches US adults through social media, including on widely used platforms for support. Many believe that social media posts about alternative cancer treatment are true at least some of the time. The willingness of US adults, including those with cancer and members of susceptible populations, to prosocially intervene could initiate the necessary community action to reduce cancer treatment misinformation if coupled with strategies to help individuals discern false claims.

Indexed as

alternative medicinecancerdisseminationfalse informationinfodemiologyinformation spreadmisinformationmobile phoneprosocial interveningsocial mediatreatment

Identifiers

PMID37505790
PMCPMC10422174
OpenAlexW4385330153

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.