Social Media Perceptions Among Young Adults With Cancer - Online Experiment 2
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
- 207 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 have promise to increase social connectedness; however, evidence-based interventions should be tailored for young adults with cancer and designed for social media. The investigators conducted an online experiment with young adults with cancer (ages 22-39) to examine the most promising message types with personal stories to identify a suite of intervention messages that encourage positive, in-person social interactions with strangers and acquaintances (i.e., weak ties).
Read the full description
This is a between-person online experiment where connected peer advocate and clinician framing and cancer-specific personal stories were used for intervention messages compared to control messages. Participants were randomized (Qualtrics built-in randomizer) evenly to 1 of 4 message panels: intervention panel 1, intervention panel 2, control panel 1, or control panel 2. The investigators hypothesized that intervention messages (vs. control) would lead to greater perceived message effectiveness and intended message reactions.
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
Cancer Peer and Clinician Messages
Participants are randomized to 1 of 2 intervention panels to view and rate 9 social media posts: 6 from socially connected cancer peer advocates and 3 from clinicians, each with a cancer story and advice to have positive in-person interactions with people they barely know.
Behavioral: Cancer Peer and Clinician Messages
Arm 2: Control - Public Service Announcement Messages
Participants are randomized to 1 of 2 control panels and view and rate 9 public service announcement posts about food safety or password safety.
Behavioral: Public Service Announcement Messages
Cancer Peer and Clinician Messages BEHAVIORAL
Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 message panels (intervention 1, intervention 2, control 1, control 2).
Public Service Announcement Messages BEHAVIORAL
Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 message panels (intervention 1, intervention 2, control 1, control 2).
What researchers are measuring
Outcome measures describe what is being studied. They are not proof that a treatment works.
Primary measures
Perceived Message Effectiveness for In-Person Interactions (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 9 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How much does this post make you want to interact in person with people you barely know? (This doesn't include online interactions.)" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived message effectiveness for in-person interactions. 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 9 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 agreement scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 9 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 9 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.
Perceived Message Effectiveness for Online Interactions (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
After viewing each of 9 social media posts, participants answered one item: "How much does this post make you want to interact online with people you barely know? (Online includes on social media.)" Response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much); higher scores indicate greater perceived message effectiveness for online interactions. 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 Hill, Department of Radiation OncologyChapel Hill, North Carolina, United StatesStatus unknown
Study team and timeline
- Lead sponsor
- UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Study start
- Oct 29, 2025 Actual
- Primary completion
- Jan 15, 2026 Actual
- Study completion
- Jan 15, 2026 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 2
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