Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Cancer

Date Submitted: Oct 31, 2023
Date Accepted: Apr 8, 2024

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Variation in Trust in Cancer Information Sources by Perceptions of Social Media Health Mis- and Disinformation and by Race and Ethnicity Among Adults in the United States: Cross-Sectional Study

Stimpson J, Park S, Pruitt SL, Ortega AN

Variation in Trust in Cancer Information Sources by Perceptions of Social Media Health Mis- and Disinformation and by Race and Ethnicity Among Adults in the United States: Cross-Sectional Study

JMIR Cancer 2024;10:e54162

DOI: 10.2196/54162

PMID: 38717800

PMCID: 11112477

Trust of Cancer Information Sources Varies by Perceptions of Social Media Health Mis- and Disinformation and Race and Ethnicity among Adults in the United States: Cross-Sectional Study

  • Jim Stimpson; 
  • Sungchul Park; 
  • Sandi L. Pruitt; 
  • Alexander N. Ortega

ABSTRACT

Background:

Mis and disinformation on social media have become widespread which can lead to a lack of trust in health information sources, and, in turn, lead to negative health outcomes. Moreover, the effect of mis-disinformation on trust of information sources may vary by racial and ethnic minoritized populations.

Objective:

We evaluated how trust in multiple sources of cancer information varied by perceptions of health mis and disinformation on social media and race/ethnicity using recently released nationally representative data with new measures on health information seeking.

Methods:

Data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey 6 (HINTS 6) were analyzed using multivariable linear probability models. The outcome variable measured the trust in cancer information from different sources. The predictor variables were perceptions about the amount of false or misleading health information on social media and race and ethnicity.

Results:

Participants who perceived a lot of health mis-disinformation, relative to those who perceived a little or none, were 13 (95% CI = -19, -7), 17 (95% CI = -24, -11), 11 (95% CI = -18, -4), and 12 (95% CI = -18, -6) percentage points less likely to trust government health agencies, family or friends, charitable organizations, and religious organizations and leaders, respectively. There were several statistically significant interaction effects between the amount of perceived mis- and disinformation and race and ethnicity.

Conclusions:

Certain sources of cancer information may need enhanced support from the threat of mis and disinformation such as government health agencies, charitable organizations, religious organizations and leader, and family or friends. Moreover, interventions may benefit from focusing on and partnering with racial and ethnically minoritized populations that are more likely to have low trust of certain cancer information sources associated with mis and disinformation on social media. Clinical Trial: Not applicable


 Citation

Please cite as:

Stimpson J, Park S, Pruitt SL, Ortega AN

Variation in Trust in Cancer Information Sources by Perceptions of Social Media Health Mis- and Disinformation and by Race and Ethnicity Among Adults in the United States: Cross-Sectional Study

JMIR Cancer 2024;10:e54162

DOI: 10.2196/54162

PMID: 38717800

PMCID: 11112477

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.