ArticlePEC innovation2024
Trust of social media content and risk of making misinformed decisions: Survey of people affected by cancer and their caregivers.
Article in PEC innovation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Visibility: Social Media, Trust, and Responsibility in Oncology.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2026Article
- Governing Patient-Facing AI-Generated Video in Digital Health: A Risk-and-Ethics Matrix for Deployment, Monitoring, and Change Control.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Social Media as a Platform for Cancer Care Decision-Making Among Women: Internet Survey-Based Study on Trust, Engagement, and Preferences.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Media health literacy predicts preventive health behaviors: findings from a nationally matched survey.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Recommending Clinical Trials for Online Patient Cases using Artificial Intelligence.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Science or hype? A cross-sectional analysis of the quality of Hodgkin lymphoma-related short videos.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study explores social media (SM) usage and trust in information among cancer patients and their caregivers. We compare socio-demographic characteristics to identify groups more likely to rely on social media for treatment decisions and those less inclined to validate social media information with their provider. Methods: A national survey of people diagnosed with cancer and those who were caregivers to people diagnosed with cancer was conducted via online survey in November-December 2021. Socio-demographic factors associated with respondents' use of SM and comfort disclosing SM use were assessed using logistic regression. Findings: Out of 262 respondents, 65% were likely to use SM to make decisions about lifestyle changes, cancer screening, vaccination, cancer treatment, medical testing, or choosing a provider. SM users were younger (OR Discussion: Results contribute new understanding of the digital divide, highlighting the need for not only improving access to digital information but also the need for a supportive environment that provides patients with dependable methods to verify the authenticity of the information they encounter.
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.