Online Medical Misinformation in Cancer: Distinguishing Fact From Fiction

Prostate Cancer Awareness in the Middle East: A Cross-Sectional International Study

PURPOSE

Prostate cancer has emerged as a significant public health challenge in the Middle East, characterized by rising incidence rates and a concerning mortality-to-incidence ratio. Yet, despite these alarming trends, data regarding prostate cancer awareness in the region remain limited. To address this critical knowledge gap, this study investigates prostate cancer awareness within the Middle East.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was performed among 5,913 men age 40 years and older across 14 Middle Eastern countries between January 1, 2022, and July 31, 2023. Excluding those with a history of prostate cancer, a validated questionnaire assessed prostate cancer awareness. Data were analyzed using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, medians and ranges for continuous variables, and Pearson chi-square analysis for relationships between education levels and awareness of prostate cancer.

RESULTS

The survey achieved a 74.9% response rate, with 4,431 male participants. Regarding prostate cancer awareness, 83.8% of participants had heard of the disease. However, only 31.0% correctly identified it as the most common malignancy in men, and 21.8% believed it affects both sex. Awareness of screening was limited, with just 19.1% recognizing the prostate-specific antigen test's role. Additionally, participants had a pessimistic view, with a mean perception that 75% of patients with prostate cancer die from the disease, rather than from other causes. Higher education levels were associated with significantly increased awareness of prostate cancer (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This study reveals that while general awareness of the disease exists, crucial knowledge deficits regarding risk factors, screening, and prognosis are evident. Addressing these knowledge gaps through culturally tailored education may improve early detection rates, treatment outcomes, and ultimately reduce the burden of prostate cancer in the Middle East.

Disparities in cancer clinical trials information-seeking: Findings from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service

OBJECTIVE

To better understand cancer clinical trials (CCT) information-seeking, a necessary precursor to patient and provider engagement with CCT.

METHODS

Data from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) were used to examine CCT information-seeking patterns over a 5-year period. Descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine characteristics of CIS inquiries and their associations with having a CCT discussion.

RESULTS

Between September 2018 - August 2023, 117,016 CIS inquiries originated from cancer survivors, caregivers, health professionals, and the general public; 27.5 % of these inquiries included a CCT discussion (n = 32,160). Among CCT discussions, 35.5 % originated from survivors, 53.5 % from caregivers, 6.1 % from the public, and 4.9 % from health professionals. Inquiries in Spanish had lower odds of a CCT discussion (OR=.26, [.25-.28]), whereas inquiries emanating from the CIS instant messaging (OR=2.29, [2.22-2.37]) and email (OR=1.24, [1.18-1.30]) platforms were associated with higher odds of discussing CCT compared to the telephone. Individuals who were male, younger, insured, and had higher income and education had significantly higher odds of a CCT discussion while those who were non-Hispanic Black and living in rural locales had significantly lower odds.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in CCT information-seeking may contribute to downstream CCT participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Quality, language-concordant health information is needed to enable equitable awareness of - and ultimately engagement in - CCT.

Cancer misinformation on social media

Social media is widely used globally by patients, families of patients, health professionals, scientists, and other stakeholders who seek and share information related to cancer. Despite many benefits of social media for cancer care and research, there is also a substantial risk of exposure to misinformation, or inaccurate information about cancer. Types of misinformation vary from inaccurate information about cancer risk factors or unproven treatment options to conspiracy theories and public relations articles or advertisements appearing as reliable medical content. Many characteristics of social media networks-such as their extensive use and the relative ease it allows to share information quickly-facilitate the spread of misinformation. Research shows that inaccurate and misleading health-related posts on social media often get more views and engagement (e.g., likes, shares) from users compared with accurate information. Exposure to misinformation can have downstream implications for health-related attitudes and behaviors. However, combatting misinformation is a complex process that requires engagement from media platforms, scientific and health experts, governmental organizations, and the general public. Cancer experts, for example, should actively combat misinformation in real time and should disseminate evidence-based content on social media. Health professionals should give information prescriptions to patients and families and support health literacy. Patients and families should vet the quality of cancer information before acting upon it (e.g., by using publicly available checklists) and seek recommended resources from health care providers and trusted organizations. Future multidisciplinary research is needed to identify optimal ways of building resilience and combating misinformation across social media.

The Digital Health Revolution: Exploring the Impact of Online Cancer Information on Self-Reported Preventive Behaviors

Cancer, one of the leading causes of death worldwide, is a disease characterized by uncontrolled cell growth within the body. While there have been many improvements in the treatment of cancer clinically, there is now an urgent need to improve cancer-related communication. This study explores the impact of online health information, specifically cancer-related information and prevention, among members of the general public. Through a randomized survey, we examined what information leads people to take action to minimize their cancer risk and communicate with their providers. Through evaluation of the various modes of communication, we were able to provide insight into which are more effective and better received by members of the general public. Through this, ways of bettering these avenues of communication and strengthening the bond between them will be highlighted and more easily elaborated on by future studies. The results of our study indicated that 60% of participants asserted that they are motivated by online preventive information to take steps to limit their cancer risk, while only roughly 44% of participants overall agreed that their doctor has communicated with them about when proper cancer screenings should be scheduled for the future. Although patients may be turning to the Internet now more than ever due to various reasons, when comparing self-reported rates of comprehension among the study participants, 35% agreed that the cancer-related information they can access online is confusing, while fewer than 22% of participants agreed that the cancer-related information they receive directly from their doctor is confusing. This is indicative of the limitations the Internet may have when undertaking the role of being a medical resource, especially when acting as a replacement for in-person medical appointments where patients can communicate directly with their physicians. Ultimately, these results provide a unique perspective into how people receive, evaluate, and implement cancer-preventive steps and general health-related information in a post-COVID-19 world, where the Internet is now strongly embedded in healthcare.

Perception of cure in prostate cancer: human-led and artificial intelligence-assisted landscape review and linguistic analysis of literature, social media and policy documents

BACKGROUND

Understanding stakeholders' perception of cure in prostate cancer (PC) is essential to preparing for effective communication about emerging treatments with curative intent. This study used artificial intelligence (AI) for landscape review and linguistic analysis of definition, context and value of cure among stakeholders in PC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subject-matter experts (SMEs) selected cure-related key words using Elicit, a semantic literature search engine, and extracted hits containing the key words from Medline, Sermo and Overton, representing academic researchers, health care providers (HCPs) and policymakers, respectively. NetBase Quid, a social media analytics and natural language processing tool, was used to carry out key word searches in social media (representing the general public). NetBase Quid analysed linguistics of key word-specific hit sets for key word count, geolocation and sentiments. SMEs qualitatively summarised key word-specific insights. Contextual terms frequently occurring with key words were identified and quantified.

RESULTS

SMEs identified seven key words applicable to PC (number of acquired hits) across four platforms: Cure (12429), Survivor (6063), Remission (1904), Survivorship (1179), Curative intent (432), No evidence of disease (381) and Complete remission (83). Most commonly used key words were Cure by the general public and HCPs (11815 and 224 hits), Survivorship by academic researchers and Survivor by policymakers (378 hits each). All stakeholders discussed Cure and cure-related key words primarily in early-stage PC and associated them with positive sentiments. All stakeholders defined cure differently but communicated about it in relation to disease measurements (e.g. prostate-specific antigen) or surgery. Stakeholders preferred different terms when discussing cure in PC: Cure (academic researchers), Cure rates (HCPs), Potential cure and Survivor/Survivorship (policymakers) and Cure and Survivor (general public).

CONCLUSION

This human-led, AI-assisted large-scale qualitative language-based research revealed that cure was commonly discussed by academic researchers, HCPs, policymakers and the general public, especially in early-stage PC. Stakeholders defined and contextualised cure in their communications differently and associated it with positive value.

Cancer: A model topic for misinformation researchers

Although cancer might seem like a niche subject, we argue that it is a model topic for misinformation researchers, and an ideal area of application given its importance for society. We first discuss the prevalence of cancer misinformation online and how it has the potential to cause harm. We next examine the financial incentives for those who profit from disinformation dissemination, how people with cancer are a uniquely vulnerable population, and why trust in science and medical professionals is particularly relevant to this topic. We finally discuss how belief in cancer misinformation has clear objective consequences and can be measured with treatment adherence and health outcomes such as mortality. In sum, cancer misinformation could assist the characterization of misinformation beliefs and be used to develop tools to combat misinformation in general.

Development and user evaluation of an online caregiver education resource for Malaysian parents of children with leukemia or lymphoma

Objective

Malaysian parents of children diagnosed with leukemia or lymphoma stand to benefit from a comprehensive Malay-language online resource, complementing existing caregiver education practices. This study aimed to develop and assess the efficacy of e-Hematological Oncology Parents Education (e-HOPE), an online caregiver education resource in Malay, designed to enhance the knowledge of parents with children diagnosed with leukemia or lymphoma in Malaysia.

Methods

A user profile and topic list were established based on previous needs analysis studies. Content was developed for each identified topic. An expert panel assessed the content validity of both informational content and activity sections. Subsequently, the contents were presented via a learning management system to parents of children newly diagnosed with leukemia or lymphoma. Parents evaluated the quality of e-HOPE using the Website Evaluation Questionnaire (WEQ) after an 8-week period.

Results

The scale content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) achieved 0.996 for informational content and 0.991 for the activity section. Sixteen parents provided evaluations of e-HOPE after an 8-week usage period. Mean WEQ scores for various dimensions ranged from 4.23 for completeness to 4.88 for relevance.

Conclusions

E-HOPE was meticulously designed and developed to offer Malaysian parents a Malay-language resource complementing current caregiver education practices. It exhibited strong content validity and received positive user ratings for quality. Further assessment is warranted to evaluate its effectiveness in supporting parents of children with leukemia or lymphoma. The resource is anticipated to enhance information accessibility and support for Malaysian parents facing hematological cancers in their children.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.govNCT05455268.

Can ChatGPT Provide Quality Information on Integrative Oncology? A Brief Report

This short report evaluated the accuracy and quality of information provided by ChatGPT regarding the use of complementary and integrative medicine for cancer. Using the QUality Evaluation Scoring Tool, a panel of 12 reviewers assessed ChatGPT's responses to 8 questions. The study found that ChatGPT provided moderate-quality responses that were relatively unbiased and not misleading. However, the chatbot's inability to reference specific scientific studies was a significant limitation. Patients with cancer should not rely on ChatGPT for clinical advice until further systematic validation. Future studies should examine how patients perceive ChatGPT's information and its impact on communication with health care professionals.

Myths and common misbeliefs about cervical cancer causation among Palestinian women: a national cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer (CC) myths and beliefs can negatively impact women's preventive behaviors, including vaccination against human papillomavirus and having regular screening tests. This study aimed to examine awareness of Palestinian women about myths related to CC causation and investigated factors associated with good awareness.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional study was conducted to recruit adult Palestinian women from hospitals, primary healthcare facilities, and public areas in 11 Palestinian governorates. A translated-into-Arabic version of the Cancer Awareness Measure-Mythical Causes Scale was used to collect data. Awareness level was determined based on the number of CC myths around CC causation recognized to be incorrect: poor (0-4), fair (5-9), and good (10-13).

RESULTS

A total of 7058 questionnaires were included. Myths unrelated to food were more commonly recognized as incorrect compared to those related to food. The most recognized food-unrelated myth was 'having a physical trauma' (n = 3714, 52.6%), whereas the least recognized was 'using mobile phones' (n = 2238, 31.7%). The most recognized food-related myth was 'drinking from plastic bottles' (n = 2708, 38.4%), whereas the least recognized was 'eating food containing additives' (n = 1118, 15.8%). Only 575 participants (8.1%) displayed good awareness and promptly recognized at least 10 out of 13 myths around CC causation as incorrect. Factors associated with lower likelihood of displaying good awareness of myths around CC causation included living in the West Bank and Jerusalem, being married, widowed or divorced, knowing someone with cancer, and visiting hospitals or primary healthcare centers.

CONCLUSIONS

A very small proportion of Palestinian women recognized 10 or more myths around CC causes as incorrect. Initiatives addressing CC myths are needed in the Palestinian community.

Myths and Common Misbeliefs About Colorectal Cancer Causation in Palestine: A National Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

To explore public awareness of myths around colorectal cancer (CRC) causation in Palestine and to examine factors associated with good awareness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Convenience sampling was used to recruit adult Palestinians from governmental hospitals, primary health care centers, and public spaces. Recognizing 13 myths around CRC causation was assessed using a translated-into-Arabic version of the Cancer Awareness Measure-Mythical Causes Scale. Awareness level was determined based on the number of CRC mythical causes recognized: poor (0-4), fair (5-9), and good (10-13). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between sociodemographic characteristics and displaying good awareness. It adjusted for age group, sex, education, occupation, monthly income, residence, marital status, having chronic diseases, being a vegetarian, knowing someone with cancer, and site of data collection.

RESULTS

Of 5,254 participants approached, 4,877 agreed to participate (response rate, 92.3%). A total of 4,623 questionnaires were included in the final analysis: 2,700 from the West Bank and Jerusalem (WBJ) and 1,923 from the Gaza Strip. Only 219 participants (4.7%) demonstrated good awareness of myths around CRC causation. WBJ participants were twice more likely than those from the Gaza Strip to display good recognition (5.9% v 3.1%). Male sex, living in the WBJ, and visiting hospitals were all associated with an increase in the likelihood of displaying good awareness. Conversely, knowing someone with cancer was associated with a decrease in the likelihood of displaying good awareness. Having a physical trauma was the most recognized CRC causation myth (n = 2,752, 59.5%), whereas eating food containing additives was the least (n = 456, 9.8%).

CONCLUSION

Only 4.7% displayed good ability to recognize myths around CRC causation. Future educational interventions are needed to help the public distinguish the evidence-based versus mythical causes of CRC.

A content-based review of mobile health applications for breast cancer prevention and education: Characteristics, quality and functionality analysis

Objective

Mobile Health apps could be a feasible and effective tool to raise awareness for breast cancer prevention and to support women to change their behaviour to a healthier lifestyle. The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics and quality of apps designed for breast cancer prevention and education.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search for apps covering breast cancer prevention topics in the Google Play and Apple App Store accessible from Germany using search terms either in German or in English. Only apps with a last update after June 2020 were included. The apps identified were downloaded and evaluated by two independent researchers. App quality was analysed using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS). Associations of app characteristics and MARS rating were analysed.

Results

We identified 19 apps available in the Google Play Store and seven apps available in the Apple App Store that met all inclusion criteria. The mean MARS score was 3.07 and 3.50, respectively. Functionality was the highest-scoring domain. Operating system, developer (healthcare), download rates and time since the last update were significantly associated with overall MARS score. In addition, the presence of the following app functions significantly influenced MARS rating: breast self-examination tutorial, reminder for self-examination, documentation feature and education about breast cancer risk factors.

Conclusions

Although most of the apps offer important features for breast cancer prevention, none of the analysed apps combined all functions. The absence of healthcare professionals' expertise in developing apps negatively affects the overall quality.

Social media use is associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression in patients with neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix: A NeCTuR study

OBJECTIVE

Neuroendocrine cervical carcinoma (NECC) is rare. Educational resources are limited for NECC patients, leading many to seek information online through patient-led social networks. We sought to characterize the relationships between anxiety and depression levels and social media use among NECC patients.

METHODS

Seven surveys assessing social media use, anxiety, and depression were distributed to living NECC patients enrolled in our NECC registry. The primary outcomes were associations between Social Network Time Use Scale (SONTUS) global score and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) total scores.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients enrolled; 81 who completed at least 1 survey were included. Ninety-seven percent (70/72) of patients completing SONTUS were low-to-average social media users. Seventy-four percent (53/72) of patients visited a patient-led NECC support-group page on Facebook within the past 4 weeks, and of those, 79% (42/53) reported receiving useful information. Among the patients who did not visit the page, 47% (9/19) reported that the page elicited anxiety and/or sadness. The mean GAD-7 and CES-D scores for the entire cohort were 7.3 and 18.1, respectively. The Spearman correlations between social media use and these scores were significant (GAD-7: 0.23 [p = 0.05]; CESD: 0.25 [p = 0.04]). The estimated odds ratios for moderate/severe anxiety and depression as a function of SONTUS global score were 1.26 (95% CI 1.03-1.55; p = 0.03) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.01-1.49; p = 0.04), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NECC patients demonstrated low-to-average social media use and relatively high anxiety and depression. Increased social media use was associated with elevated anxiety and depression.

Confusion and anxiety in between abnormal cervical cancer screening results and colposcopy: "The land of the unknown"

OBJECTIVE

Attendance to colposcopy after abnormal cervical cancer screening is essential to cervical cancer prevention. This qualitative study explored patients' understanding of screening results, their experiences of the time leading up to the colposcopy appointment, and colposcopy.

METHODS

We recruited women referred for colposcopy from two urban practices in an academic health system. Individual interviews (N = 15) with participants were conducted after colposcopy appointments about their cervical cancer screening histories, current results, and colposcopy experiences. A team analyzed and summarized interviews and coded transcripts in Atlas.ti.

RESULTS

We found that most women were confused about their screening results, did not know what a colposcopy was before being referred for one, and experienced anxiety in the interval between receiving their results and having their colposcopy. Most women searched for information online, but found "misinformation," "worst-case scenarios" and generic information that did not resolve their confusion.

CONCLUSION

Women had little understanding of their cervical cancer risk and experienced anxiety looking for information and waiting for the colposcopy. Educating patients about cervical precancer and colposcopy, providing tailored information about their abnormal screening test results and potential next steps, and helping women manage distress may alleviate uncertainty while waiting for follow-up appointments.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Interventions to manage uncertainty and distress in the interval between receiving an abnormal screening test result and attending colposcopy are needed, even among highly adherent patients.

Exposure and Reactions to Cancer Treatment Misinformation and Advice: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment misinformation, or false claims about alternative cures, often spreads faster and farther than true information on social media. Cancer treatment misinformation can harm the psychosocial and physical health of individuals with cancer and their cancer care networks by causing distress and encouraging people to abandon support, potentially leading to deviations from evidence-based care. There is a pressing need to understand how cancer treatment misinformation is shared and uncover ways to reduce misinformation.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to better understand exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation, including the willingness of study participants to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share Instagram posts with cancer treatment misinformation.

METHODS

We conducted a survey on cancer treatment misinformation among US adults in December 2021. Participants reported their exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation generally (saw or heard, source, type of advice, and curiosity) and specifically on social media (platform, believability). Participants were then randomly assigned to view 1 of 3 cancer treatment misinformation posts or an information post and asked to report their willingness to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share.

RESULTS

Among US adult participants (N=603; mean age 46, SD 18.83 years), including those with cancer and cancer caregivers, almost 1 in 4 (142/603, 23.5%) received advice about alternative ways to treat or cure cancer. Advice was primarily shared through family (39.4%) and friends (37.3%) for digestive (30.3%) and natural (14.1%) alternative cancer treatments, which generated curiosity among most recipients (106/142, 74.6%). More than half of participants (337/603, 55.9%) saw any cancer treatment misinformation on social media, with significantly higher exposure for those with cancer (53/109, 70.6%) than for those without cancer (89/494, 52.6%; P<.001). Participants saw cancer misinformation on Facebook (39.8%), YouTube (27%), Instagram (22.1%), and TikTok (14.1%), among other platforms. Participants (429/603, 71.1%) thought cancer treatment misinformation was true, at least sometimes, on social media. More than half (357/603, 59.2%) were likely to share any cancer misinformation posts shown. Many participants (412/603, 68.3%) were willing to prosocially intervene for any cancer misinformation posts, including flagging the cancer treatment misinformation posts as false (49.7%-51.4%) or reporting them to the platform (48.1%-51.4%). Among the participants, individuals with cancer and those who identified as Black or Hispanic reported greater willingness to intervene to reduce cancer misinformation but also higher intentions to share misinformation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer treatment misinformation reaches US adults through social media, including on widely used platforms for support. Many believe that social media posts about alternative cancer treatment are true at least some of the time. The willingness of US adults, including those with cancer and members of susceptible populations, to prosocially intervene could initiate the necessary community action to reduce cancer treatment misinformation if coupled with strategies to help individuals discern false claims.

Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this advertising remain unknown. This context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically analyze the advertising activities of prominent alternative cancer treatment practitioners on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Audience Network. We specifically sought to determine (1) whether paid advertising for alternative cancer treatment occurs on Meta social media platforms, (2) the strategies and messages of alternative cancer providers to reach and appeal to prospective patients, and (3) how the efficacy of alternative treatments is portrayed.

METHODS

Between December 6, 2021, and December 12, 2021, we collected active advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ad Library. The information collected included identification number, URL, active/inactive status, dates launched/ran, advertiser page name, and a screenshot (image) or recording (video) of the advertisement. We then conducted a content analysis to determine how alternative cancer providers communicate the claimed benefits of their services and evaluated how they portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

We identified 310 paid advertisements from 11 alternative cancer clinics on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger) marketing alternative treatment approaches, care, and interventions. Alternative cancer providers appealed to prospective patients through eight strategies: (1) advertiser representation as a legitimate medical provider (n=289, 93.2%); (2) appealing to persons with limited treatments options (n=203, 65.5%); (3) client testimonials (n=168, 54.2%); (4) promoting holistic approaches (n=121, 39%); (5) promoting messages of care (n=81, 26.1%); (6) rhetoric related to science and research (n=72, 23.2%); (7) rhetoric pertaining to the latest technology (n=63, 20.3%); and (8) focusing treatment on cancer origins and cause (n=43, 13.9%). Overall, 25.8% (n=80) of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide evidence alternative cancer providers are using Meta advertising products to market scientifically unsupported cancer treatments. Advertisements regularly referenced "alternative" and "natural" treatment approaches to cancer. Imagery and text content that emulated evidence-based medical providers created the impression that the offered treatments were effective medical options for cancer. Advertisements exploited the hope of patients with terminal and poor prognoses by sharing testimonials of past patients who allegedly were cured or had their lives prolonged. We recommend that Meta introduce a mandatory, human-led authorization process that is not reliant upon artificial intelligence for medical-related advertisers before giving advertising permissions. Further research should focus on the conflict of interest between social media platforms advertising products and public health.

Examining understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation in popular YouTube videos on sleep compared to expert-led videos

The Internet is a common source of sleep information but may be subject to commercial bias and misinformation. We compared the understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation of popular YouTube videos on sleep to videos with credible experts. We identified the most popular YouTube videos on sleep/insomnia and 5 videos from experts. Videos were assessed for understanding and clarity using validated instruments. Misinformation and commercial bias were identified by consensus of sleep medicine experts. The most popular videos received, on average, 8.2 (± 2.2) million views; the expert-led videos received, on average, 0.3 (± 0.2) million views. Commercial bias was identified in 66.7% of popular videos and 0% of expert videos (P < .012). The popular videos featured more misinformation than expert videos (P < .001). The popular videos about sleep/insomnia on YouTube featured misinformation and commercial bias. Future research may explore methods for disseminating evidence-based sleep information.

CITATION

Robbins R, Epstein LJ, Iyer JM, et al. Examining understandability, information quality, and presence of misinformation in popular YouTube videos on sleep compared to expert-led videos. J Clin Sleep Med. 2023;19(5):991-994.

An evaluation of the suitability, readability, quality, and usefulness of online resources for patients with cancer receiving immunotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the suitability, readability, quality, and usefulness of available online resources about the side effects of immunotherapy.

METHODS

Resources were identified through online searches (Google, Microsoft Bing, and Yahoo search engines) and evaluated using the Suitability Assessment Materials (SAM), three readability formulae, the DISCERN tool (quality), and a checklist of symptom management strategies and self-management skills (usefulness). Hierarchical cluster analysis identified resources scoring highly for suitability and quality. Factors associated with the clusters were identified using Fischer's exact tests.

RESULTS

The 51 resources retained for evaluation were of low suitability and quality and exceeded recommended reading levels. Resources were lacking key features to support learning (e.g., illustrations) as well as information about the risks of treatments and the effect of treatments on quality of life. Few resources addressed key self-management skills of problem-solving and taking action. The cluster analysis identified "low" and "moderate" clusters for suitability and quality, and pamphlets and booklets were more likely to be in the moderate cluster as compared to webpages.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of high-quality resources to support patients' learning to self-manage side effects of immunotherapy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Results identify the best available online resources for self-managing side effects of immunotherapy and gaps for future work. Based on findings, a template for patient education materials was developed.

Clinician Communication With Patients About Cancer Misinformation: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

Clinicians regularly face conversations about information that patients have found online. Given the prevalence of misinformation, these conversations can include cancer-related misinformation, which is often harmful. Clinicians are in a key position as trusted sources of information to educate patients. However, there is no research on clinician-patient conversations about cancer-related misinformation. As a first step, the objective of this study was to describe how cancer clinicians report communicating with patients about online cancer misinformation.

METHODS

We used convenience and snowball sampling to contact 59 cancer clinicians by e-mail. Contacted clinicians predominately worked at academic centers across the United States. Clinicians who agreed participated in semistructured interviews about communication in health care. For this study, we focused specifically on clinicians' experiences discussing online cancer-related misinformation with patients. We conducted a thematic analysis using a constant comparative approach to identify how clinicians address misinformation during clinical visits.

RESULTS

Twenty-one cancer clinicians participated in the study. Nineteen were physicians, one was a physician assistant, and one was a nurse practitioner. The majority (62%) were female. We identified four themes that describe how cancer clinicians address misinformation: (1) work to understand the misinformation; (2) correct misinformation through education; (3) advise about future online searches, and (4) preserve the clinician-patient relationship.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified four strategies that clinicians use to address online cancer-related misinformation with their patients. These findings provide a foundation for future research, allowing us to test these strategies in larger samples to examine their effectiveness.

Everything causes cancer? Beliefs and attitudes towards cancer prevention among anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and reptilian conspiracists: online cross sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, using an online non-probability sample, the beliefs about and attitudes towards cancer prevention of people professing vaccination scepticism or conspiracy theories.

DESIGN

Cross sectional survey.

SETTING

Data collected mainly from ForoCoches (a well known Spanish forum) and other platforms, including Reddit (English), 4Chan (English), HispaChan (Spanish), and a Spanish language website for cancer prevention (mejorsincancer.org) from January to March 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

Among 1494 responders, 209 were unvaccinated against covid-19, 112 preferred alternative rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported flat earth or reptilian beliefs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cancer beliefs assessed using the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and Cancer Awareness Measure Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS) (both validated tools).

RESULTS

Awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater (median CAM score 63.6%) than that of mythical causes (41.7%). The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives or sweeteners, feeling stressed, and eating genetically modified food. Awareness of the actual and mythical causes of cancer among the unvaccinated, alternative medicine, and conspiracy groups was lower than among their counterparts. A median of 54.5% of the actual causes was accurately identified among each of the unvaccinated, alternative medicine, and conspiracy groups, and a median of 63.6% was identified in each of the three corresponding counterparts (P=0.13, 0.04, and 0.003, respectively). For mythical causes, medians of 25.0%, 16.7%, and 16.7% were accurately identified in the unvaccinated, alternative medicine, and conspiracy groups, respectively; a median of 41.7% was identified in each of the three corresponding counterparts (P<0.001 in adjusted models for all comparisons). In total, 673 (45.0%) participants agreed with the statement "It seems like everything causes cancer." No significant differences were observed among the unvaccinated (44.0%), conspiracist (41.9%), or alternative medicine groups (35.7%), compared with their counterparts (45.2%, 45.7%, and 45.8%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of the participants agreed that "It seems like everything causes cancer," which highlights the difficulty that society encounters in differentiating actual and mythical causes owing to mass information. People who believed in conspiracies, rejected the covid-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine were more likely to endorse the mythical causes of cancer than their counterparts but were less likely to endorse the actual causes of cancer. These results suggest a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.