Assessing Cancer Patients' Exposure to Treatment Misinformation.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Naomi D Parker, Skyler B Johnson, Andy J King, Tithi B Amin, Briony Swire-Thompson, Zhongyue Zhang, Carma L Bylund
{"title":"Assessing Cancer Patients' Exposure to Treatment Misinformation.","authors":"Naomi D Parker, Skyler B Johnson, Andy J King, Tithi B Amin, Briony Swire-Thompson, Zhongyue Zhang, Carma L Bylund","doi":"10.1007/s13187-025-02712-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02712-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

评估癌症患者对治疗错误信息的暴露。
了解患者何时以及如何遇到癌症治疗错误信息(CTM)对于制定对抗其传播的创新策略至关重要。然而,CTM研究的一个主要挑战是缺乏一个可靠和有效的工具来评估错误信息的暴露。本研究旨在通过癌症治疗错误信息暴露(ECTM)调查来评估患者对CTM的暴露。CTM的运作包括未经证实或不被证实的癌症治疗方法,先前推荐的传统癌症治疗方法,以及接受与癌症治疗直接或间接相关的神话和误解。共有110名被诊断患有癌症的参与者完成了这项调查。他们被要求从提供的列表中找出他们听说过的无证据的潜在癌症治疗方法。总体而言,93% (n = 102)报告暴露于至少一种形式的CTM。大多数人(79%)至少遇到过一种由美国国家癌症研究所确定的癌症神话或误解。被动接触CTM,而不是主动寻求信息,更常见的报道。参与者认为朋友和家人是CTM最常见的来源。这些发现强调了ECTM调查在捕获CTM暴露的多个维度方面的效用,包括来源,暴露类型(寻找与扫描),CTM类型分类,以及患者是否与肿瘤学家讨论他们遇到的CTM。未来的研究应侧重于在不同人群中验证ECTM,探索患者与肿瘤学家关于CTM的交流,确定CTM暴露的模式,并将该工具用作旨在减少错误信息暴露的干预措施的结果测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer Education
Journal of Cancer Education 医学-医学:信息
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
6.20%
发文量
122
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues. Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care. We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts. Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited. Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants. Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信