Trial reportPsycho-oncology2026
Improving Critical Appraisal of Cancer-Related Health Information: A Pilot Randomised Trial of the Informed Health Choices-Cancer Programme.
Trial report in Psycho-oncology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople impacted by cancer may be confronted with conflicting and misleading cancer-related information that is everywhere in daily life. The Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) programme was developed to equip participants with the skills and knowledge necessary to think critically and make well-informed health choices.
aimsTo assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcomes of the IHC-C programme.
methodsWe conducted an online pilot randomised trial to compare the IHC-C programme with a waitlist control within a prespecified recruitment window. Adults impacted by cancer (current patients, survivors, informal caregivers and loved ones) were recruited and randomised 1:1. The intervention was a 4-week, nine-unit online learning programme. Primary outcomes assessed feasibility (recruitment, retention, adherence, technical feasibility, and data-collection processes) and acceptability (participation rates, participation burden, and overall acceptability). Secondary outcomes included eHealth literacy, critical thinking and decision-making skills, which were assessed post-intervention.
resultsForty-three participants were randomised (22 intervention; 21 waitlist control), achieving 72% of the recruitment target. In the intervention group, 91% accessed the platform and 64% completed all nine units. Outcome assessment completion was 64% (14/22) in the intervention group and 81% (17/21) in the control group. Acceptability was high among intervention completers, as indicated by both quantitative and qualitative measures. eHealth literacy scores were high in both groups, with ceiling effects and no between-group difference (Hodges-Lehmann median difference -1.0, 95% CI -5.0 to 1.0). Critical thinking and decision-making quiz scores were higher in the intervention group in exploratory analyses (median difference: 1.0, 95% CI: 1.0-2.0), although the distributions clustered near the upper range.
conclusionsThe IHC-C programme was feasible to deliver and acceptable to participants within a defined recruitment period. These findings support progression to a fully powered trial, with refinements to engagement strategies and outcome measurement.
trial registrationThis trial was registered on ISRCTN registry with ID ISRCTN17391470.
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.