An interventional study of Connected advocate advice and Lonely advocate advice in Cancer and Cancer Survivors, sponsored by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 22 Years to 39 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-10.
Sponsored by UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
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.
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.
10,818 studies on the registry are indexed under Neoplasms; 2,324 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 505 is above the median of 60 across 7,703 interventional studies indexed under Neoplasms.
Browse Neoplasms studies →UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center is the lead sponsor of 429 studies on the registry; 97 are open to participants now.
Of its 33 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 26 (79%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
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
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
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
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
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
Behavioral: Control messages
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 message conditions.
Perceived Message Effectiveness (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
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.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Positive Affect (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
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.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Perceived Social Presence (Single Item Adapted From Lazard et al., 2020; 5-Point Scale)
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.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Message Relevance (Single Item Adapted From Jensen et al., 2024; 5-Point Scale)
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.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Attention (Single Item Adapted From Sutfin et al., 2019; 5-Point Scale)
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.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Perceived Authenticity (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
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.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Negative Affect, Unintended Reaction (Single-Item Self-Report, 5-Point Scale)
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.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Reactance, Unintended Reaction (Single Item Adapted From Hall et al., 2017; 5-Point Scale)
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.
Time frame: Baseline, Up to 1 hour
Plan to share: No
Ran from May 2025 to primary completion in Jul 2025, 1 month.
Of 1,981 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Neoplasms, half reached primary completion within 29 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 13 and three quarters within 52. This study's 1 month is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 2,056 studies reached it within 29 months; a quarter within 13 and three quarters within 52.
Neoplasms covers many different conditions, not one, so the studies compared here vary widely. Read these figures as a rough guide.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center →