What is the alternative? Responding strategically to cancer misinformation

References

• 1. Kirkwood MK, Hanley A, Bruinooge SS et al. The state of oncology practice in America, 2018: results of the ASCO practice census survey. J. Oncol. Pract. 14(7), e412–e420 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2. Johnson SB, Park HS, Gross CP, Yu JB. Use of alternative medicine for cancer and its impact on survival. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 110(1), 121–124 (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 3. Caulfield T, Snyder J. When crowdfunding pays for bunk medical treatments (2019). https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2019/when-crowdfunding-pays-for-bunk-medical-treatments/
  Google Scholar
• 4. Snyder J, Adams K, Chen YY et al. Navigating physicians' ethical and legal duties to patients seeking unproven interventions abroad. Can. Fam. Physician 61(7), 584 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5. Larson HJ. The biggest pandemic risk? Viral misinformation. Nature 562(7726), 309–310 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359(6380), 1146–1151 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Funk C. Fact Tank. Key Findings About Americans’Confidence In Science And Their Views On Scientists’Role In Society. Pew Research Center, (2020). www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/
  Google Scholar
• 8. Lazer D, Ognyanova K, Baum MA, Della Volpe J. The state of the nation: a 50-state COVID-19 survey. COVID-19 Consortium for Understanding the Public's Policy Preferences Across States 298 (2020). www.kateto.net/COVID19%20CONSORTIUM%20REPORT%20April%202020.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 9. NCCIH. Complementary, alternative, or integrative health: what’s in a name? (2019). https://nccih.nih.gov/health/integrative-health
  Google Scholar
• 10. Ambrosone CB, Zirpoli GR, Hutson AD. Dietary supplement use during chemotherapy and survival outcomes of patients with breast cancer enrolled in a Cooperative Group Clinical Trial (SWOG S0221). J. Clin. Oncol. 38(8), 804–814 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 11. Seely D, Verma S. The Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians principles of care guidelines. Curr. Oncol. 26(1), 8 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12. Johnson SB, Park HS, Gross CP, Yu JB. Complementary medicine, refusal of conventional cancer therapy, and survival among patients with curable cancers. JAMA Oncol. 4(10), 1375–1381 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13. Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Annu. Rev. Public Health 41(1), 433–451 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 14. Giles J. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 438(7070), 900–901 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Striphas T. Algorithmic culture. Eur. J. Cult. Stud. 18(4–5), 395–412 (2015).
  Google Scholar
• 16. Couldry N, Hepp A. The Mediated Construction of Reality. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK (2018).
  Google Scholar
• 17. Levy S. Wired. Exclusive: how Google’s algorithm rules the web (2010). www.wired.com/2010/02/ff_google_algorithm/
  Google Scholar
• 18. Ross L, Greene D, House P. The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13(3), 279–301 (1977).
  Google Scholar
• 19. Caulfield T, Marcon AR, Murdoch B et al. Health misinformation and the power of narrative messaging in the public sphere. Can. J. Bioeth. 2(2), 52–60 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 20. Dahlstrom MF. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111(S4), 13614–13620 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Koehler DJ. Can journalistic “false balance” distort public perception of consensus in expert opinion? J. Experiment Psych 22(1), 24(2016).
  Google Scholar
• 22. Krause RJ, Rucker DD. Strategic storytelling: when narratives help versus hurt the persuasive power of facts. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46(2), 216–227 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med. Decis. Making 27(5), 672–680 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24. Hamstra DA, Johnson SB, Daignault S et al. The impact of numeracy on verbatim knowledge of the longitudinal risk for prostate cancer recurrence following radiation therapy. Med. Decis. Making 35(1), 27–36 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 8(2), 53–96 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 26. Fagerlin A, Rovner D, Stableford S, Jentoft C, Wei JT, Holmes-Rovner M. Patient education materials about the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: a critical review. Ann. Intern. Med. 140(9), 721–728 (2004).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 27. Pandey A, Hasan S, Dubey D, Sarangi S. Smartphone apps as a source of cancer information: changing trends in health information-seeking behavior. J. Cancer Educ. 28(1), 138–142 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 28. Gordon HS, Street RL Jr, Sharf BF, Kelly PA, Souchek J. Racial differences in trust and lung cancer patients’ perceptions of physician communication. J. Clin. Oncol. 24(6), 904–909 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 29. Kazer MW, Bailey DE Jr, Chipman J et al. Uncertainty and perception of danger among patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 111(3b), E84–E91 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 30. Dale W, Hemmerich J, Bylow K, Mohile S, Mullaney M, Stadler WM. Patient anxiety about prostate cancer independently predicts early initiation of androgen deprivation therapy for biochemical cancer recurrence in older men: a prospective cohort study. J. Clin. Oncol. 27(10), 1557 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 31. McGinnies E, Ward CD Better liked than right: trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personal. Soc. Psych. Bulletin 6(3), 467–472 (1980).
  Google Scholar
• 32. Hillen MA, de Haes HC, Smets EM. Cancer patients’ trust in their physician – a review. Psychooncology 20(3), 227–241 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 33. Thom DH, Hall MA, Pawlson LG. Measuring patients’ trust in physicians when assessing quality of care. Health Aff. 23(4), 124–132 (2004).
  Google Scholar
• 34. Trevino KM, Fasciano K, Prigerson HG. Patient-oncologist alliance, psychosocial well-being, and treatment adherence among young adults with advanced cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 31(13), 1683 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35. Waters EA, Arora NK, Klein WM, Han PK. Perceived risk, trust and health-related quality of life among cancer survivors. Ann. Behav. Med. 39(1), 91–97 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 36. Müller E, Zill JM, Dirmaier J, Härter M, Scholl I. Assessment of trust in physician: a systematic review of measures. PLoS ONE 9(9), 1–9 (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 37. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 103(19), 1436–1443 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 38. Elwyn G, O'Connor A, Stacey D et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 333(7565), 417 (2006).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39. Gorawara-Bhat R, O'Muircheartaigh S, Mohile S, Dale W. Patients’ perceptions and attitudes on recurrent prostate cancer and hormone therapy: qualitative comparison between decision-aid and control groups. J. Geriatr. Oncol. 8(5), 368–373 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 40. Fagerlin A, Wang C, Ubel PA. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people’s health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Med. Decis. Making 25(4), 398–405 (2005).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 41. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P et al. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ. Couns. 73(3), 448–455 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 42. WHO. Director-General’s remarks at the media briefing on 2019 novel coronavirus on (2020). www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/director-general-s-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-2019-novel-coronavirus---8-february-2020
  Google Scholar
• 43. Edelman Trust Barometer. 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report (2019). www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2019-02/2019_Edelman_Trust_Barometer_Global_Report.pdf
  Google Scholar
• 44. Tomeny TS, Vargo CJ, El-Toukhy S. Geographic and demographic correlates of autism-related anti-vaccine beliefs on Twitter, 2009–15. Soc. Sci. Med. 191, 168–175 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar