ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2026
Development and validation of an instrument to assess public perception of cancer primary prevention information.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer primary prevention (CPP), particularly through evidence-based recommendations like the 4th European Code Against Cancer (ECAC4), represents a cost-effective strategy to reduce cancer burden. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) of CPP strategies remain fragmented and inconsistent, and instruments to assess dissemination of CPP are lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate an instrument to assess the public (i) perceptions of CPP message characteristics, and (ii) public perceptions of ECAC4.
methodsThe validation of the ´Information on Cancer Primary Prevention` instrument was developed through a multi-stage process grounded in two D&I frameworks: McGuire's Communication-Persuasion Matrix and Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations. After literature review, items were generated for the two questions assessing message characteristics (channel preferences and source trustworthiness) and 25 items to assess ECAC4 five perceived attributes: advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Validation involved cognitive interviews for message characteristics, expert validation through a two-round Delphi panel for ECAC4 attributes, and pre-testing with 240 adults recruited through an online panel. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to assess structural validity, and Cronbach's alpha was used to evaluate internal consistency.
resultsRefinements in terminology, response scales, and item wording were implemented after cognitive interviews for the two questions of message characteristics (channel preference and source trustworthiness). EFA revealed three factors for channel preferences (Traditional broadcast media, Digital media/online interactive platforms, and Print media and interpersonal; α = 0.703-0.775) and two factors for source trustworthiness (Official sources and Unofficial sources; α = 0.792-0.859). The five ECAC4 attributes were evaluated in a Delphi panel with two rounds - due to participant attrition the panel was discontinued before full consensus could be reached for all items; five items were adapted based on expert qualitative feedback and included in the pre-test. All five ECAC4 attributes subscales demonstrated unidimensionality with strong factor loadings (> 0.50) and good to excellent reliability (α = 0.714-0.831).
conclusionsThis instrument exhibits initial evidence of content and exhibits satisfactory psychometric properties, offering preliminary evidence of structural validity, and internal consistency. By operationalizing key constructs from established dissemination and implementation frameworks, it addresses critical gaps in cancer prevention communication research.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.