ArticleJMIR cancer2025
Evaluating the Feasibility of Web-Monitoring Methodology for Measuring Exposure to Online Cancer Misinformation.
Article in JMIR cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Unlabelled: Understanding the impact of online cancer misinformation exposure on health outcomes is an area of growing concern, but few methods exist to objectively measure this exposure. The primary aim of this paper is to describe the lessons learned in using web-monitoring software to measure exposure to online cancer misinformation among patients with cancer. These lessons learned emerged from our experience conducting a prospective pilot study from October 2022 to August 2023 wherein we adopted commercially available web-monitoring software to capture cancer-related web content. A total of 56 patients with cancer completed a baseline survey, and 17 of these participants installed web-monitoring software on their personal computer for 30 days and completed a follow-up survey. We use implementation outcomes to describe the feasibility of this methodological approach using lessons learned in 3 topic areas, namely data quality, software implementation, and participant acceptability. We found the web-monitoring data to be appropriate for our research aim to objectively measure cancer misinformation exposure, although compatibility issues with social media websites and mobile devices negatively impacted data quality. A complex installation process negatively impacted implementation and caused an unknown number of participants to drop out after the baseline survey. Among participants who completed the study, reported acceptability of web-monitoring software for research purposes was high, though potentially biased by selective retention. This pilot study testing web-monitoring software for research purposes among patients with cancer demonstrates high acceptability but low feasibility due to implementation barriers. We propose practical solutions to address these barriers and believe the lessons learned here offer a promising foundation for improving methods to objectively measure patient exposure to online cancer information. Future studies should focus on exploring perceptions of web-monitoring among nonparticipants, considering alternative approaches, and expanding web-monitoring to include mobile devices.
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.