Parker Naomi D, Johnson Skyler B, King Andy J, Amin Tithi B, Swire-Thompson Briony, Zhang Zhongyue, Bylund Carma L
Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Utah-Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
J Cancer Educ. 2025 Sep 6. doi: 10.1007/s13187-025-02712-0.
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.
了解患者何时以及如何接触到癌症治疗错误信息（CTM）对于制定创新策略以对抗其传播至关重要。然而，CTM研究中的一个主要挑战是缺乏一种可靠且有效的工具来评估对错误信息的接触情况。本研究旨在通过癌症治疗错误信息接触情况（ECTM）调查来评估患者对CTM的接触情况。CTM的定义包括未经证实或已被证伪的癌症治疗方法、放弃推荐的传统癌症治疗方法以及接受与癌症护理直接或间接相关的神话和误解。共有110名癌症诊断患者完成了调查。他们被要求从提供的列表中识别出他们听说过的非循证潜在癌症治疗方法。总体而言，93%（n = 102）的人报告接触过至少一种形式的CTM。大多数（79%）人遇到过美国国立癌症研究所确定的至少一种癌症神话或误解。更多人报告的是被动接触CTM，而非主动寻求信息。参与者提到朋友和家人是CTM最常见的来源。这些发现强调了ECTM调查在捕捉CTM接触的多个维度方面的效用，包括来源、接触类型（寻求与浏览）、对CTM类型进行分类，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的沟通，识别CTM接触模式，并将该工具用作旨在减少错误信息接触的干预措施的结果指标。
