ArticlePloS one2026
Intervening and reducing sharing of false cancer treatments on social media: Online experiment.
Article in PloS one, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer treatment misinformation (e.g., false cures) is shared widely on social media and harmful. Cancer treatment misinformation is potentially shared because people want to help or provide hope for those with cancer. We need strategies, like prompts that inform others that a post may be false, to redirect individuals to prosocially intervene instead of sharing to reduce cancer treatment misinformation.
objectiveWe examined whether social cue prompts with a post review policy would lead to more intervening and less sharing of cancer treatment misinformation.
methodsWe conducted a between-persons online experiment with adult participants from the US recruited via Prolific. Participants were randomized to view cancer treatment misinformation social media posts with social cue prompts and a flagging policy (treatment) or no prompts or policy (control) and reported willingness for intervening (e.g., flagging), sharing, and message reactions. Participants also reported their motivations for intervening or sharing the posts.
resultsSocial cue prompts and policies for platform action encouraged participants to intervene (e.g., flag) significantly more than people who did not see prompts, p < .001. Social cue prompts and policies also led to significantly less sharing and sharing actions on social media (e.g., liking posts), p < .001. Social cue prompts (vs. no prompts) led to greater motivation to intervene with the misinformation, most often because it could be false (accuracy concerns) and potentially harmful to people with cancer (empathic concerns), both p < .001. Social cue prompts also led to less motivation to share; fewer would share because the post was interesting or may provide hope (altruistic motivations), both p < .001.
conclusionPrompts (also called warnings, nudges, or labels) on cancer treatment misinformation are a promising approach to encourage intervening (flagging) and reduce sharing on social media. Social cue prompts and policies also reduced common motivations for sharing - to help and provide (false) hope - that could be interpreted as misguided altruism.
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.