Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
Susceptibility of cancer patients and caregivers to online cancer misinformation: a qualitative interview study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mohamed Hind, Salsberg Jon, Alanzi Turki, Mohamed Mudathir, Kelly Dervla
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of the internet for cancer care, there is also a substantial risk of exposure to misinformation. Our paper aims to explore the susceptibility of cancer patients and caregivers to online cancer misinformation.
METHOD: We conducted semi-structured onsite interviews with nineteen cancer patients and six caregivers. We used descriptive-interpretive thematic analysis following an open-ended approach to investigate beliefs affecting susceptibility to online misinformation, the impact of cancer misinformation, the mitigation strategies, and the barriers and facilitators to safeguard against online misinformation. The theory of planned behaviour and the health belief model informed our data generation and analysis.
RESULTS: Six major themes emerged from the analysis: navigation/evaluation beliefs, belief in peer experiences, impact of cancer misinformation, trustworthy healthcare communication, and barriers and facilitators to safeguard against online misinformation. Participants reported using superficial methods to search and evaluate online cancer information to reduce their cognitive efforts. Peer experiences were considered a trustworthy source of cancer information. Cancer misinformation impacted the psychological and physical health outcomes of patients. The participants used trustworthy healthcare communication strategies and/or information sources to mitigate the effect of online misinformation. However, fear of confronting the physicians and reluctance to interfere with the consultation process were the main identified barriers. The participants recommended providing guidance on searching and evaluating credible information to help safeguard against online misinformation.
CONCLUSION: Directing patients to well-known online national and international cancer information repositories and introducing evaluation checklists by clinicians may help patients safely search and evaluate online information.
METHOD: We conducted semi-structured onsite interviews with nineteen cancer patients and six caregivers. We used descriptive-interpretive thematic analysis following an open-ended approach to investigate beliefs affecting susceptibility to online misinformation, the impact of cancer misinformation, the mitigation strategies, and the barriers and facilitators to safeguard against online misinformation. The theory of planned behaviour and the health belief model informed our data generation and analysis.
RESULTS: Six major themes emerged from the analysis: navigation/evaluation beliefs, belief in peer experiences, impact of cancer misinformation, trustworthy healthcare communication, and barriers and facilitators to safeguard against online misinformation. Participants reported using superficial methods to search and evaluate online cancer information to reduce their cognitive efforts. Peer experiences were considered a trustworthy source of cancer information. Cancer misinformation impacted the psychological and physical health outcomes of patients. The participants used trustworthy healthcare communication strategies and/or information sources to mitigate the effect of online misinformation. However, fear of confronting the physicians and reluctance to interfere with the consultation process were the main identified barriers. The participants recommended providing guidance on searching and evaluating credible information to help safeguard against online misinformation.
CONCLUSION: Directing patients to well-known online national and international cancer information repositories and introducing evaluation checklists by clinicians may help patients safely search and evaluate online information.