TOPLINE:

A national survey found that over 80% of US adults said they trust cancer information provided by scientists, though those on the conservative end of the political spectrum were more skeptical.

METHODOLOGY:

• Public trust in scientific authorities is a key determinant of the uptake of recommendations on cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. However, political polarization in recent years has prompted concerns that ideology could shape trust in scientists and affect public health communication.
• Researchers analyzed data from 6260 US adults (mean age, 48 years) who took part in a nationally representative survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute in 2024; the respondents were demographically and ethnically diverse.
• The researchers evaluated the associations between political ideology (measured on a seven-point scale from ‘very liberal’ to ‘very conservative’) and the level of trust in scientists for cancer information — dichotomized as high (some or a lot) vs low (not at all or a little).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 86% of respondents (n = 5320) reported high trust in scientists for cancer information.
• There was, however, a gradient from greater trust among liberal respondents to lesser trust among conservatives. For each one-point increase toward greater conservatism, the odds of reporting high trust declined by 25%, after adjustment for age, educational attainment, family history of cancer, and trust in doctors for cancer information (adjusted odds ratio, 0.75).
• Adjusted estimated probabilities of high trust decreased from 93.7% among liberal respondents to 70.5% among very conservative respondents. Between-group differences in trust levels were statistically significant (F_6,49 = 11.37; P < .001).
• Older age was associated with reduced trust, while college education was associated with greater trust — which “may reflect greater familiarity with scientific norms and confidence in evaluating evidence,” the authors wrote

IN PRACTICE:

This study showed that “scientists remained broadly trusted figures in cancer communication,” the authors wrote. However, they noted, “there is a need to identify trusted messengers who can connect with ideologically diverse audiences on these issues in a manner that communicates the key cancer messaging for prevention or treatment.” Both scientific authorities and clinicians, they added, should try to communicate in plain language, with “transparent explanations” of areas of uncertainty.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Christopher Wheldon, PhD, of Temple University in Philadelphia, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The survey’s overall response rate was low, which increased the potential for nonresponse bias. Additionally, trust and political ideology were evaluated using single-item measures, which may not have captured the complexity or multidimensionality of these constructs.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. One author reported receiving grants and personal and consulting fees from Merck and personal fees from GO2 for Lung Cancer outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.