ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Online cancer forums and complementary and alternative medicine in cancer care: effects of ehealth literacy and psychological distress on use and attitudes.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOnline cancer forums are often assumed to promote misinformation and unsupported treatment claims, including some non-evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) approaches. This study examined the relationship between online cancer forum use, attitudes toward complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and the use of non-evidence-based therapies, with a specific focus on CAM approaches prevalent in German-speaking countries.
methodsA cross-sectional anonymous online survey was conducted in June-July 2025 among adult users of the largest German cancer forum, assessing forum use, CAM-related attitudes (defined according to the German S3 guideline checklist, version 1.2), eHealth literacy, psychological distress, and sociodemographic and disease-related variables. Forum use was dichotomized by median split, and data were analyzed using non-parametric tests and multivariable regression models.
resultsAmong 458 participants, high versus low forum use differed by sociodemographic and disease-related factors but was not associated with eHealth literacy or psychological distress. Among CAM users (44.3%, n = 203), CAM use intensity was moderate (median = 2, IQR 1-3) and showed no association with forum use, eHealth literacy, psychological distress, or sociodemographic variables; no independent predictors were identified. CAM-related forum discussions were rated as significantly less trustworthy than discussions on conventional cancer treatments (t(383) = 16.88, p < 0.001), independent of eHealth literacy, psychological distress, or participant role.
conclusionThe use of CAM approaches, including both evidence-based supportive interventions and non-evidence-based methods, was not associated with forum exposure, eHealth literacy, or psychological distress. Forum users demonstrated differentiated trust patterns, with consistently lower perceived credibility attributed to CAM-related discussions compared with discussions on conventional cancer treatments. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: For cancer survivors, online cancer forums appear to function primarily as contextual support resources rather than drivers of non-evidence-based treatment decisions. Clinicians should therefore address forum use openly and early, focusing on guidance and shared decision-making instead of discouragement.
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.