Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38291409›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Canadians' knowledge of cancer risk factors and belief in cancer myths.

E Rydz, J Telfer, E K Quinn, S S Fazel, E Holmes, G Pennycook, C E Peters

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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. Shooting for the Moon: Can We Cut Cancer Mortality in Canada By 50% By 2050?Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

E RydzSchool of Population and Public Health, CAREX Canada, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
J TelferSchool of Population and Public Health, CAREX Canada, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
E K QuinnSchool of Population and Public Health, CAREX Canada, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
S S FazelDepartment of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
E HolmesCanadian Cancer Society, Toronto, Canada.
G PennycookDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, New York, USA.
C E PetersSchool of Population and Public Health, CAREX Canada, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. cheryl.peters1@bccdc.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany untrue statements about cancer prevention and risks are circulating. The objective of this study was to assess Canadians' awareness of known cancer risk factors and cancer myths (untruths or statements that are not completely true), and to explore how awareness may vary by sociodemographic and cognitive factors.

methodsCancer myths were identified by conducting scans of published, grey literature, and social media. Intuitive-analytic thinking disposition scores included were actively open- and close-minded thinking, as well as preference for intuitive and effortful thinking. A survey was administered online to participants aged 18 years and older through Prolific. Results were summarized descriptively and analyzed using chi-square tests, as well as Spearman rank and Pearson correlations.

resultsResponses from 734 Canadians were received. Participants were better at identifying known cancer risk factors (70% of known risks) compared to cancer myths (49%). Bivariate analyses showed differential awareness of known cancer risk factors (p < 0.05) by population density and income, cancer myths by province, and for both by ethnicity, age, and all thinking disposition scores. Active open-minded thinking and preference for effortful thinking were associated with greater discernment. Tobacco-related risk factors were well-identified (> 90% correctly identified), but recognition of other known risk factors was poor (as low as 23% for low vegetable and fruit intake). Mythical cancer risk factors with high support were consuming additives (61%), feeling stressed (52%), and consuming artificial sweeteners (49%). High uncertainty of causation was observed for glyphosate (66% neither agreed or disagreed). For factors that reduce cancer risk, reasonable awareness was observed for HPV vaccination (60%), but there was a high prevalence in cancer myths, particularly that consuming antioxidants (65%) and organic foods (45%) are protective, and some uncertainty whether drinking red wine (41%), consuming vitamins (32%), and smoking cannabis (30%) reduces cancer risk.

conclusionsWhile Canadians were able to identify tobacco-related cancer risk factors, many myths were believed and numerous risk factors were not recognized. Cancer myths can be harmful in themselves and can detract the public's attention from and action on established risk factors.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeNeoplasmsNorth American PeopleCanadaHumansRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesAwarenessCancerCancer beliefsCancer misinformationCancer mythsThinking disposition

Identifiers

PMID38291409
PMCPMC10829248

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.