Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41343215›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Public Trust in Scientists for Cancer Information Across Political Ideologies in the US.

Christopher W Wheldon, Meghnaa Tallapragada, Erika L Thompson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Christopher W WheldonDepartment of Social & Behavioral Sciences, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Meghnaa TallapragadaDepartment of Advertising & Public Relations, Klein College of Media and Communication, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Erika L ThompsonDepartment of Quantitative and Qualitative Health Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health San Antonio, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Public trust in scientists is essential for effective cancer communication and uptake of cancer control strategies. However, growing political polarization in the US may affect trust in scientific authorities. Objective: To determine whether political ideology is associated with trust in scientists as sources of cancer information, and whether individuals with more conservative political views would report lower levels of trust in scientists. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study is a cross-sectional secondary analysis of the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute. This population-based sample of noninstitutionalized US adults was collected by mail using a stratified random sampling frame from March to September 2024. Respondents were aged 18 years or older and demographically diverse. The sample was weighted to be representative of the US adult population. Exposure: Political ideology measured on a 7-point bipolar scale from very liberal to very conservative. Main Outcome and Measure: Trust in scientists for cancer information, dichotomized as high (some or a lot) vs low (not at all or a little). Survey-weighted logistic regression models were used to estimate associations. Results: Of 7278 respondents (response rate, 27.3%), 6260 were included in the final analytic sample after excluding cases with missing data on the primary exposure or outcome. The mean age was 48.4 years (95% CI, 47.9-48.9 years). There were 52.1% men (95% CI, 51.2%-53.0%), and 35.1% reported a college degree (95% CI, 34.5%-35.7%). Most respondents (5320 individuals ) reported high trust in scientists as sources of cancer information (86.0%; 95% CI, 84.4%-87.5%). In adjusted logistic regression models, each 1-point increase toward greater conservatism was associated with a 25% decrease in the odds of reporting high trust (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68-0.83). Adjusted estimated probabilities of high trust decreased across the political spectrum, from 93.7% those identifying as liberal (95% CI, 88.3%-96.7%) to 70.5% among those identifying as very conservative (95% CI, 63.9%-76.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US adults, overall trust in scientists as sources of cancer information was high. However, a clear ideological gradient suggests the need for tailored messaging and trusted messengers to reach politically diverse audiences with evidence-based cancer information.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPoliticsPublic OpinionTrustAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41343215
PMCPMC12679320

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.