Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40913676›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026

Assessing Cancer Patients' Exposure to Treatment Misinformation.

Naomi D Parker, Skyler B Johnson, Andy J King, Tithi B Amin, Briony Swire-Thompson, Zhongyue Zhang, Carma L Bylund

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Naomi D ParkerDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. naomiparker@ufl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6783-9666
Skyler B JohnsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah-Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Andy J KingDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Tithi B AminDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Briony Swire-ThompsonDepartment of Political Science; Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Zhongyue ZhangDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Carma L BylundDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CommunicationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInformation Seeking BehaviorNeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMedia ExposureMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer information seekingCancer treatment misinformationPhysician-patient communication

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.