JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Cancer misinformation often spread faster and further than true information on social media. Cancer treatment misinformation, or false information about alternative cancer treatments and cures, can harm the psychosocial and physical health of individuals with cancer and their cancer care networks of friends and family. Cancer treatment misinformation can lead to distress, abandoning support, and potentially deviating from evidence-based care. There is a pressing need to learn more about how cancer treatment misinformation is shared and to uncover ways to encourage prosocially intervene to reduce exposure and impact of harmful misinformation.

Objective:

We aimed to better understanding exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation, including willingness to prosocially intervene and intentions to share.

Methods:

We conducted an online survey with an embedded experiment with cancer treatment misinformation among US adults. First, participant reported exposure and reactions to cancer treatment (mis)information in general (saw/heard, source, type of advice, curiosity) and specifically on social media (platform, believability). Second, participants were randomly assigned to view one of three cancer treatment misinformation posts or a control post and reported their willingness to prosocially intervene and intentions to share.

Results:

Among US adult participants (N = 306, Mage = 46), including those with cancer and cancer caregivers, almost one in four (24%) received general advice for alternative ways to treat or cure cancer. Advice was primarily shared through family (39%) and friends (37%) for digestive (31%) and natural (14%) alternative cancer treatments, which generated curiosity among most recipients (75%). Exposure was higher on social media, where more than half (56%) of US adult participants saw cancer treatment (mis)information, primarily on Facebook (40%), YouTube (27%), Instagram (22%), and TikTok (14%), among other platforms. Participants (71%) thought cancer treatment (mis)information was true at least sometimes on social media and many (66%) were likely to share (mis)information posts shown. More promising, three of four participants (77%) were willing to prosocially intervene for the cancer (mis)information posts, including to flag as misinformation (63%) or report to the platform (63%). Individuals with cancer, Black participants, and Hispanic participants reported greater willingness to intervene to reduce cancer misinformation, but also higher intentions to share misinformation.

Conclusions:

Cancer treatment (mis)information is reaching US adults through social media, including on some of the most widely used platforms for support. Many believe social media cancer treatment posts are true at least some of the time. The willingness of US adults, including those with cancer and vulnerable population, to prosocially intervene could initiate the necessary community action to reduce the exposure and impact of cancer treatment misinformation. Clinical Trial: https://aspredicted.org/2WN_3HD