User Interface Designs to Address Cancer Misinformation
6 affiliations
- 1Hussman School of Journalism and Media, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
- 2Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
- 3Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
- 4Injury Prevention Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
- 5Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
- 6Division of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
Abstract
Importance: Misinformation about false and potentially harmful cancer treatments is common on social media. Strategies are needed to encourage reporting to reduce exposure to inaccurate treatment claims.
Objective: To evaluate the impact of 2 user interface designs (prompts on posts) on intervening and sharing cancer misinformation on social media.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-group, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial assessed outcomes at 5 time points from March 31 to May 12, 2025. US adults (ages 18-65 years) who had a cancer diagnosis or identified as a cancer caregiver and used social media were recruited from Prolific. Participants interacted with cancer misinformation posts on a simulated realistic social media platform. Data were analyzed from May 13, 2025, to July 27, 2026.
Interventions: Participants were randomized to cancer misinformation posts shown with social cue–enhanced prompts that specify others’ actions and a review policy, standard prompts, or no prompts (control).
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a participant flagging a post to intervene. Primary and secondary outcomes included recorded social media behavior (flagging, disliking, liking) and self-reported willingness to flag, dislike, like, comment, and share about the posts. Intervening outside the study platform was also assessed. A separate generalized estimating equations model was used for each outcome.
Results: A total of 294 individuals (mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years; 179 [62%] women) with cancer or who were caregivers for individuals with cancer were randomized, with 88 participants receiving social cue prompts, 92 receiving standard prompts, and 114 receiving no prompts. Posts with inaccurate claims were flagged 2 to 3 times more often with social cue (224 of 592 posts [38%]) and standard (180 of 689 posts [26%]) prompts than those without prompts (84 of 675 posts [12%]) (social cue vs control: rate ratio [RR], 3.12 [95% CI, 1.79-5.42]; standard vs control: RR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.20-3.88]). Prompts led to less sharing behavior (ie, liking: 20 posts [3%] with social cue prompts; 10 posts [1%] with standard prompts) compared with posts without prompts (65 posts [10%]) (social cue vs control: RR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.04-0.15]; standard vs control: RR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.04-0.42]). Prompts also led to greater willingness to flag and dislike (intervening) and less willingness to like and share compared with no prompt. Standard prompts led to more flagging on existing social media (outside the study platform) than no prompts.
Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of user interface designs, simple prompts encouraged responsible behavior online. Prompts on posts led to more intervening and less sharing of cancer misinformation.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT07588607
Related
- Beyond Identifying Misinformation—Helping Patients Navigate Evidence and Uncertainty in Cancer Care
- Enhancing patient understanding of ovarian cancer: creation, validation and user-readability evaluation of an education booklet
- Harnessing conversational generative artificial intelligence and natural language processing to address the colorectal cancer screening adherence gap: the Azores endeavour
- Targeted and co-developed interventions to address infection-related cancer inequalities
- Evaluating the user experience of the Beacon Decision Support System: a mixed-methods study of a digital platform for equity-oriented cancer care
BibTeX
@article{lazard2026user,
title = {{User Interface Designs to Address Cancer Misinformation}},
author = {Allison J. Lazard and Mirian Avendaño-Galdamez and Tara Licciardello Queen and Shelby Lake and Tushar Varma and David Marshall and Hung-Jui Tan and Jacob N. Stein and Nabarun Dasgupta},
journal = {JAMA Network Open},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.41122},
url = {https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2855942},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - User Interface Designs to Address Cancer Misinformation
AU - Allison J. Lazard
AU - Mirian Avendaño-Galdamez
AU - Tara Licciardello Queen
AU - Shelby Lake
AU - Tushar Varma
AU - David Marshall
AU - Hung-Jui Tan
AU - Jacob N. Stein
AU - Nabarun Dasgupta
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - JAMA Network Open
DO - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.41122
UR - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2855942
AB - Importance: Misinformation about false and potentially harmful cancer treatments is common on social media. Strategies are needed to encourage reporting to reduce exposure to inaccurate treatment claims. Objective: To evaluate the impact of 2 user interface designs (prompts on posts) on intervening and sharing cancer misinformation on social media. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-group, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial assessed outcomes at 5 time points from March 31 to May 12, 2025. US adults (ages 18-65 years) who had a cancer diagnosis or identified as a cancer caregiver and used social media were recruited from Prolific. Participants interacted with cancer misinformation posts on a simulated realistic social media platform. Data were analyzed from May 13, 2025, to July 27, 2026. Interventions: Participants were randomized to cancer misinformation posts shown with social cue–enhanced prompts that specify others’ actions and a review policy, standard prompts, or no prompts (control). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a participant flagging a post to intervene. Primary and secondary outcomes included recorded social media behavior (flagging, disliking, liking) and self-reported willingness to flag, dislike, like, comment, and share about the posts. Intervening outside the study platform was also assessed. A separate generalized estimating equations model was used for each outcome. Results: A total of 294 individuals (mean [SD] age, 39.3 [11.7] years; 179 [62%] women) with cancer or who were caregivers for individuals with cancer were randomized, with 88 participants receiving social cue prompts, 92 receiving standard prompts, and 114 receiving no prompts. Posts with inaccurate claims were flagged 2 to 3 times more often with social cue (224 of 592 posts [38%]) and standard (180 of 689 posts [26%]) prompts than those without prompts (84 of 675 posts [12%]) (social cue vs control: rate ratio [RR], 3.12 [95% CI, 1.79-5.42]; standard vs control: RR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.20-3.88]). Prompts led to less sharing behavior (ie, liking: 20 posts [3%] with social cue prompts; 10 posts [1%] with standard prompts) compared with posts without prompts (65 posts [10%]) (social cue vs control: RR, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.04-0.15]; standard vs control: RR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.04-0.42]). Prompts also led to greater willingness to flag and dislike (intervening) and less willingness to like and share compared with no prompt. Standard prompts led to more flagging on existing social media (outside the study platform) than no prompts. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of user interface designs, simple prompts encouraged responsible behavior online. Prompts on posts led to more intervening and less sharing of cancer misinformation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT07588607
SN - 2574-3805
ER -