Social Media Perceptions Among Young Adults With Cancer - Online Experiment 1
Cancer · Cancer Survivors
What this study involves
The registry does not currently label this study as recruiting. Ask about its status before planning a screening visit.
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Not applicable
- Age range
- 22 years - 39 years
- Sex eligible
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Participants
- 505 Actual
These are starting points, not an eligibility decision. The research team must review the full requirements.
About the research
Young adults with cancer experience more loneliness than their non-cancer peers or older cancer survivors. Positive psychology interventions may increase social connectedness; however, evidence-based interventions should be tailored to young adults with cancer and designed for social media. This study conducted an online experiment with young adults with cancer (ages 22-39) to optimize intervention messages.
Read the full description
To examine how message types and personal stories influence reactions, the study used a mixed between-within online experiment. The researchers hypothesized that four message types (connected peer advocates, lonely peer advocates, cancer peers, and clinicians) would lead to greater perceived message effectiveness in encouraging positive in-person social interactions and stronger intended message reactions compared with control messages (H1). They also hypothesized that including a personal story (cancer-related or general) would improve perceived message effectiveness and intended message reactions (H2). Unintended message reactions were also explored.
Who may be able to participate?
The list below is the sponsor’s full registry wording. It can include conditions, prior treatment, test results and other requirements. A match in search does not mean you qualify.
Inclusion Criteria:
- Participants must be 22-39 years old at the time of the study
- Participants must have received a cancer diagnosis at any point between ages 15-39
- Participants must self-report low-to-moderate psychosocial quality of life (QOL), defined as an average rating of 4 or lower on the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) validated 2-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global mental health scale (two 5-point items)
- Participants must use social media
Exclusion Criteria:
- None
Treatment, groups and participation
The registry may describe treatments and study duration without a complete visit calendar. Ask the study team for the exact schedule, procedures, risks, costs and alternatives. Keep your usual care plan unless your treating clinician tells you otherwise.
- Assignment
- Random assignment
- Masking
- No masking
Connected advocate advice
Participants viewed five social media-based messages consisting of photographs of peers who are cancer advocates who have successfully created social connections and captions with advice for having more in person connections.
Behavioral: Connected advocate advice
Lonely advocate advice
Participants viewed five social media-based messages consisting of photographs of peers who are cancer advocates who are experiencing loneliness but still try to have social connections and captions with advice for having more in person connections.
Behavioral: Lonely advocate advice
Peer-to-peer sharing
Participants viewed five social media-based messages consisting of peer-to-peer sharing about connecting with others and captions with advice for having more in person connections.
Behavioral: Peer-to-peer sharing
Clinician advice
Participants viewed five social media-based messages consisting of photographs of clinicians and captions with advice for having more in person connections.
Behavioral: Clinician advice
Control messages
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
Behavioral: Control messages
Connected advocate advice BEHAVIORAL
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
Lonely advocate advice BEHAVIORAL
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
Peer-to-peer sharing BEHAVIORAL
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions
Clinician advice BEHAVIORAL
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
Control messages BEHAVIORAL
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
What researchers are measuring
Outcome measures describe what is being studied. They are not proof that a treatment works.
Primary measures
Perceived Message Effectiveness (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 5 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How much does this post make you want to connect in person with people you barely know more often?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived message effectiveness. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Secondary measures
Positive Affect (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 5 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How good does viewing this post make you feel?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater positive affect. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Perceived Social Presence (Single Item Adapted From Lazard et al., 2020; 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 5 social media posts, participants answered one item: "When viewing this post, how much do you feel as if someone is talking to you?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived social presence. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Message Relevance (Single Item Adapted From Jensen et al., 2024; 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 5 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How relevant is this post to you?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived relevance. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Attention (Single Item Adapted From Sutfin et al., 2019; 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 5 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How much does this post grab your attention?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater attention. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Perceived Authenticity (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 5 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How much do you think this post shares a real perspective?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived authenticity. Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message type.
Other measures
Negative Affect, Unintended Reaction (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 5 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How bad does viewing this post make you feel?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater negative affect (a less favorable reaction). Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Reactance, Unintended Reaction (Single Item Adapted From Hall et al., 2017; 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 5 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How much does this post annoy you?" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater reactance (a less favorable reaction). Ratings were compared across experimental conditions and message types.
Review the complete result tables and limitations in the official record.
Open official results ↗Research locations (1)
The overall study status and a local site’s status can differ. Confirm that location’s availability before traveling.
1 locations
University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, North Carolina, United StatesStatus unknown
Study team and timeline
- Lead sponsor
- UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Study start
- May 27, 2025 Actual
- Primary completion
- Jul 23, 2025 Actual
- Study completion
- Jul 23, 2025 Actual
- First posted
- Nov 10, 2026 Actual
- Last updated
- Nov 10, 2026 Actual
Official study contacts
No central contact is listed. Check the locations and the official record.
Official study title
Social Media Perceptions Among Young Adults With Cancer - Online Experiment 1
Ask Wellness Clinical Research
Your message goes to WCR, including when this study is run by another organization. WCR may offer general guidance but may not operate this trial, have access to its team or be able to enroll you.
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Information is submitted by sponsors and investigators. NLM does not approve the safety or science of all listed studies. Registry disclaimer.
Retrieved: Nov 12, 2026 · Last registry update: Nov 10, 2026