CancerNCT07588607
Social Media Posts About Cancer: Five Timepoints
A study testing Social cue prompt and policy and Standard prompts in people with Cancer, run by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The main purpose of this trial was to evaluate the impact of user interface designs on intervening with cancer misinformation on social media. The investigators conducted a randomized clinical trial with a sample of 294 US adults (ages 18-65) who previously had a cancer diagnosis or were a cancer caregiver. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Social cue prompt and policy and Standard prompts
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 294 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 31 Mar 2025to 12 May 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Are ages 18-65
- Received a cancer diagnosis or have been a cancer caregiver
- Used social media
- Were willing to complete all five study timepoints
- Resided in the United States
Who cannot join
- Were unable to scroll to see posts on Invibe in the screener survey
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599
About this study
The main purpose of this trial was to evaluate the impact of user interface designs on intervening with cancer misinformation on social media. The investigators conducted a randomized clinical trial with a sample of 294 US adults (ages 18-65) who previously had a cancer diagnosis or were a cancer caregiver. This registration record only covers the 5 timepoint trial under the same IRB number.
Read the detailed description
This 5 timepoint trial aimed to determine whether user interface designs encouraged intervening and reduced sharing of cancer misinformation on social media. The investigators enrolled 294 adults, ages 18-65, who had received a cancer diagnosis or were a cancer caregiver. Participants completed 5 online surveys, space approximately 2 business days apart. In the first survey, participant were randomized to 1 of 3 trial arms, described below. During each online survey, participants interacted with a simulated social media platform, branded as Invibe. Participants had passive exposure to stimuli cancer misinformation posts and cancer support posts in social media feeds. Participants also had forced exposure to stimuli posts in the online survey after interacting with Invibe. The investigators recorded social media behavior on Invibe and assessed self-reported measures in the online survey.
This study was preregister on AsPredicted.com on March 24, 2025, prior to data collection and data analysis (https://aspredicted.org/te3su2.pdf).
- Conditions
- Cancer
- Being tested
- Social cue prompt and policy, Standard prompts
- Keywords
- Communication, Social media, Cancer misinformation, Misinformation
- Medical subject headings
- Neoplasms, Communication
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Social cue prompt and policyBehavioural
Cancer misinformation posts are shown with a prompt above the post caption that read, "This post has been flagged as false and potentially harmful by [47 or 48] people on Invibe. If you want to report, click the flag below." The social media launch screen had an overlaid policy for removing flagged posts: "We are committed to working with you and others on Invibe to reduce false and potentially harmful information. When a post is flagged by 50 people, we remove it until we verify the information. Please help us make the Invibe experience a good one for all."
Standard promptsBehavioural
Cancer misinformation posts are shown with a prompt above the post caption that read, "This post has been flagged as false and potentially harmful. If you want to report, click the flag below."
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Social cue prompts and policy | Experimental | Participants are exposed to the social cue prompts and policy intervention with cancer misinformation posts. Receives: Behavioral: Social cue prompt and policy |
| Standard prompts | Experimental | Participants are exposed to the standard prompts intervention with cancer misinformation posts. Receives: Behavioral: Standard prompts |
| Control | No intervention | Participants do not see prompts on cancer misinformation posts. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Flagging
Measured with intervening behavior, defined as the flag icon selected. Response options were no (coded as 0) or yes (coded as 1). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Willingness to flag
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item: "How willing are you to flag this post?" Responses ranged from "not at all" (coded as 1) to "extremely" (5). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Secondary outcomes (12)
Disliking
Measured with intervening behavior, defined as the thumbs down icon selected. Response options were no (coded as 0) or yes (coded as 1). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Liking
Measured with intervening behavior, defined as the heart icon selected. Response options were no (coded as 0) or yes (coded as 1). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Willingness to dislike
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item: "How willing are you to dislike (thumbs down) this post?" Responses ranged from "not at all" (coded as 1) to "extremely" (5). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Willingness to like
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item: "How willing are you to like (heart) this post?" Responses ranged from "not at all" (coded as 1) to "extremely" (5). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Willingness to comment
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item: "How willing are you to comment on this post?" Responses ranged from "not at all" (coded as 1) to "extremely" (5). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Willingness to share
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item: "How likely are you to share or tell someone about this post?" Responses ranged from "not at all" (coded as 1) to "extremely" (5). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Comment valence
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item: "What type of comment would you write on this post?" Response options were "comment to agree" (share), "comment to disagree" (intervene), "other," or "I would not comment." Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Sharing recipient
Measured with 1 self-report survey item: "Who would you share about this post with?" Response options were "someone with cancer," "someone who is a cancer caregiver," "health-care provider," "other," or "no one." Assessed 6 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at first timepoint and last timepoint approximately 2 weeks apart.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Sharing channel
Measured with 1 self-report survey item: "How would you share about this post?" Response options were "private message on social media," "text message," "in person," "repost on your social media," "other," and "none of these ways." Assessed 6 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at timepoint 1 and timepoint 5 approximately 2 weeks apart.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Past week intervening behavior
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item: "In the last 7 days, did you take action against false and potentially harmful cancer posts from social media? Select all that apply." Response options included muted accounts, flagged posts, disliked posts, commented to correct posts, chatted with others to disagree with posts information, encouraged someone to flag or report a posts, other or did not do anything. Assessed 1 time. Assessed at timepoint 4 approximately a week after the day of enrollment
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Past week intervening platform
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item per reported interpersonal intervening behavior: "Who did you [intervening behavior]? Select all that apply." Response options were "someone with cancer," "someone who is a cancer caregiver," "health-care provider," "other," or "no one." Assessed up to 2 times. Assessed at timepoint 4 approximately a week after the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Past week intervening topic
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item per reported intervening behavior: "What was the [source for intervening] about? Select all that apply." Response options were "to adopt a new mindset," "diet and nutrition advice," "physical activity advice," "advice to stop clinical care," "to seek treatment outside the US," or "other." Assessed up to 6 times. Assessed at timepoint 4 approximately a week after the day of enrollment.
Measured: Up to 2 weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 May 2026
- Study start31 Mar 2025
- Primary completion12 May 2025
- Study completion12 May 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 294 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Allison J Lazard, PhD, Principal investigator, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07588607
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 25-0269-5TP
- Status last verified
- May 2026
- First submitted
- 6 May 2026
- Last updated
- 15 May 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Researcher may request de-identified data from participants 1 year after publication.
Publications
Lazard AJ, Avendano-Galdamez M, Queen TL, Lake S, Varma T, Marshall D, Tan HJ, Stein JN, Dasgupta N. User Interface Designs to Address Cancer Misinformation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2026 Oct 1;9(10):e2641122. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.41122.
PubMed 42954988
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 May 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Social Media Posts About Cancer: Five Timepoints
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07588607
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 25-0269-5TP
- Conditions
- Cancer
- Keywords
- Communication, Social media, Cancer misinformation, Misinformation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 294 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 31 Mar 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 12 May 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 12 May 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 15 May 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The main purpose of this trial was to evaluate the impact of user interface designs on intervening with cancer misinformation on social media. The investigators conducted a randomized clinical trial with a sample of 294 US adults (ages 18-65) who previously had a cancer diagnosis or were a cancer caregiver. This registration record only covers the 5 timepoint trial under the same IRB number.
Detailed description
This 5 timepoint trial aimed to determine whether user interface designs encouraged intervening and reduced sharing of cancer misinformation on social media. The investigators enrolled 294 adults, ages 18-65, who had received a cancer diagnosis or were a cancer caregiver. Participants completed 5 online surveys, space approximately 2 business days apart. In the first survey, participant were randomized to 1 of 3 trial arms, described below. During each online survey, participants interacted with a simulated social media platform, branded as Invibe. Participants had passive exposure to stimuli cancer misinformation posts and cancer support posts in social media feeds. Participants also had forced exposure to stimuli posts in the online survey after interacting with Invibe. The investigators recorded social media behavior on Invibe and assessed self-reported measures in the online survey.
This study was preregister on AsPredicted.com on March 24, 2025, prior to data collection and data analysis (https://aspredicted.org/te3su2.pdf).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Social cue prompts and policy | Experimental | Behavioral: Social cue prompt and policyParticipants are exposed to the social cue prompts and policy intervention with cancer misinformation posts. |
| Standard prompts | Experimental | Behavioral: Standard promptsParticipants are exposed to the standard prompts intervention with cancer misinformation posts. |
| Control | No intervention | –Participants do not see prompts on cancer misinformation posts. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Are ages 18-65
- Received a cancer diagnosis or have been a cancer caregiver
- Used social media
- Were willing to complete all five study timepoints
- Resided in the United States
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Were unable to scroll to see posts on Invibe in the screener survey
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Social cue prompt and policyCancer misinformation posts are shown with a prompt above the post caption that read, "This post has been flagged as false and potentially harmful by [47 or 48] people on Invibe. If you want to report, click the flag below." The social media launch screen had an overlaid policy for removing flagged posts: "We are committed to working with you and others on Invibe to reduce false and potentially harmful information. When a post is flagged by 50 people, we remove it until we verify the information. Please help us make the Invibe experience a good one for all." | Behavioural | Social cue prompts and policy |
| Standard promptsCancer misinformation posts are shown with a prompt above the post caption that read, "This post has been flagged as false and potentially harmful. If you want to report, click the flag below." | Behavioural | Standard prompts |
Primary outcome
Flagging
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Measured with intervening behavior, defined as the flag icon selected. Response options were no (coded as 0) or yes (coded as 1). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
Willingness to flag
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Measured with 1 self-reported survey item: "How willing are you to flag this post?" Responses ranged from "not at all" (coded as 1) to "extremely" (5). Assessed 15 times. Assessed for 2 cancer misinformation posts and 1 cancer support post at each timepoint approximately 2 business days apart, starting on the day of enrollment.
12 secondary outcomes
Disliking
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Liking
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Willingness to dislike
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Willingness to like
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Willingness to comment
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Willingness to share
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Comment valence
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Sharing recipient
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Sharing channel
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Past week intervening behavior
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Past week intervening platform
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Past week intervening topic
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 May 2026.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42954988Lazard AJ, Avendano-Galdamez M, Queen TL, Lake S, Varma T, Marshall D, Tan HJ, Stein JN, Dasgupta N. User Interface Designs to Address Cancer Misinformation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2026 Oct 1;9(10):e2641122. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.41122.
- University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center Clinical TrialsLink provided by the sponsor.
- AsPredicted.com on March 24, 2025Link provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Researcher may request de-identified data from participants 1 year after publication.
Related trials for Cancer
Enrolling by invitation
Exercise Intervention for Breast Cancer Patients With Sarcopenia
Sarcopenia, Breast Cancer
RecruitingPhase 3
A Study Comparing TAK-928 With Docetaxel in Adults With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
IO Resistant Squamous and Nonsquamous NSCLC
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Saruparib in HRDsig+ Solid Tumors
Malignant Neoplastic Disease (Disorder)
RecruitingPhase 2
IGFBP-2 Vaccine to Prevent Ovarian Cancer Progression in Patients With Serologic Detection of Recurrence
Fallopian Tube Carcinoma, Ovarian Carcinoma
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Nemtabrutinib for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)/Small Lymphocytic Leukemia (SLL) Refractory to Covalent Bruton Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor or Pirtobrutinib and Previously Treated With a BCL2 Inhibitor
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Small Lymphocytic Leukemia
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Allison J Lazard, PhD principal investigator
UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Social cue prompt and policy and Standard prompts in people with Cancer, run by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 May 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Flagging (time frame: Up to 2 weeks). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07588607, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 May 2026.