Naomi D Parker, Skyler B Johnson, Andy J King, Tithi B Amin, Briony Swire-Thompson, Zhongyue Zhang, Carma L Bylund
{"title":"评估癌症患者对治疗错误信息的暴露。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Assessing Cancer Patients' Exposure to Treatment Misinformation.
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.
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.