ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026
Assessing Cancer Patients' Exposure to Treatment Misinformation.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding when and how patients encounter cancer treatment misinformation (CTM) is essential for developing innovative strategies to combat its spread. However, a major challenge in CTM research is the lack of a reliable and valid tool to assess exposure to misinformation. This study aimed to evaluate patients' exposure to CTM through the exposure to cancer treatment misinformation (ECTM) survey. CTM was operationalized as including unproven or disproven cancer treatments, foregoing recommended conventional cancer treatments, and acceptance of myths and misconceptions directly or indirectly related to cancer care. A total of 110 participants with a cancer diagnosis completed the survey. They were asked to identify non-evidence-based potential cancer treatments that they had heard of from a provided list. Overall, 93% (n = 102) reported exposure to at least one form of CTM. Most (79%) had encountered at least one cancer myth or misconception identified by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Passive exposure to CTM, rather than active information-seeking, was more commonly reported. Friends and family were cited by participants as the most common source of CTM. These findings underscore the utility of the ECTM survey in capturing multiple dimensions of CTM exposure, including source, exposure type (seeking versus scanning), categorizing CTM types, and whether patients engage oncologists in discussions about the CTM they encounter. Future research should focus on validating the ECTM across diverse populations, exploring patient-oncologist communication about CTM, identifying patterns of CTM exposure, and using the tool as an outcome measure in interventions designed to decrease misinformation exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40913676What 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.