Pilot testing of the Informed Health Choices-Cancer resource improves critical thinking and decision-making in cancer patients, indicating enhanced health literacy.
Purpose People impacted by cancer face increasing challenges in navigating a landscape of abundant health information and misinformation. This study outlines the development and pilot testing of the Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) learning resource, designed to provide users the skills and knowledge necessary to think critically about the reliability of health claims and make well-informed choices. This study outlines the development and pilot testing of this learning resource. Methods Using a human-centred design approach, the resource was co-developed with those impacted by cancer through iterative refinement. Tailored content and multimedia formats were used to support over three stages of pilot testing: initial prototype development, testing with small stakeholder groups, and testing with a broader sample. Quantitative ratings and qualitative feedback guided improvements in accessibility, usability, and relevance. Results Thirty-three participants responded positively to the resource, noting its accessible language, practical content, and engaging format. In the final round of testing, over 80% found the resource as ‘very well aligned’ with learning outcomes, ‘very easy to understand’, ‘very relevant’ to cancer, and ‘very easy to navigate’. Navigation ratings improved from 50.0% at prototype stage to 85.4% at final stage. The resource was perceived as effective in supporting critical thinking, informed decision-making, and reflecting real-life cancer experiences. Conclusions The IHC-C learning resource offers an innovative, practical tool for integrating critical thinking into cancer care. It shows promise in supporting informed decision-making and reduces vulnerability to misinformation. Implications for Cancer Survivors The resource may enhance health literacy and empower survivors to critically evaluate health information and manage their care more confidently.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: