Literature DB >> 28097527

Breast Cancer Screening and Social Media: a Content Analysis of Evidence Use and Guideline Opinions on Twitter.

Anthony Nastasi1,2, Tyler Bryant3, Joseph K Canner4, Mark Dredze5, Melissa S Camp4, Neeraja Nagarajan4,6.   

Abstract

There is ongoing debate regarding the best mammography screening practices. Twitter has become a powerful tool for disseminating medical news and fostering healthcare conversations; however, little work has been done examining these conversations in the context of how users are sharing evidence and discussing current guidelines for breast cancer screening. To characterize the Twitter conversation on mammography and assess the quality of evidence used as well as opinions regarding current screening guidelines, individual tweets using mammography-related hashtags were prospectively pulled from Twitter from 5 November 2015 to 11 December 2015. Content analysis was performed on the tweets by abstracting data related to user demographics, content, evidence use, and guideline opinions. Standard descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Comparisons were made by demographics, tweet type (testable claim, advice, personal experience, etc.), and user type (non-healthcare, physician, cancer specialist, etc.). The primary outcomes were how users are tweeting about breast cancer screening, the quality of evidence they are using, and their opinions regarding guidelines. The most frequent user type of the 1345 tweets was "non-healthcare" with 323 tweets (32.5%). Physicians had 1.87 times higher odds (95% CI, 0.69-5.07) of providing explicit support with a reference and 11.70 times higher odds (95% CI, 3.41-40.13) of posting a tweet likely to be supported by the scientific community compared to non-healthcare users. Only 2.9% of guideline tweets approved of the guidelines while 14.6% claimed to be confused by them. Non-healthcare users comprise a significant proportion of participants in mammography conversations, with tweets often containing claims that are false, not explicitly backed by scientific evidence, and in favor of alternative "natural" breast cancer prevention and treatment. Furthermore, users appear to have low approval and confusion regarding screening guidelines. These findings suggest that more efforts are needed to educate and disseminate accurate information to the general public regarding breast cancer prevention modalities, emphasizing the safety of mammography and the harms of replacing conventional prevention and treatment modalities with unsubstantiated alternatives.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Mammography; Social media; Twitter

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28097527     DOI: 10.1007/s13187-017-1168-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  18 in total

1.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Debbie Saslow; Kimberly Andrews Sawyer; Wylie Burke; Mary E Costanza; W Phil Evans; Roger S Foster; Edward Hendrick; Harmon J Eyre; Steven Sener
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Novel survey disseminated through Twitter supports its utility for networking, disseminating research, advocacy, clinical practice and other professional goals.

Authors:  Hendrik Borgmann; Sasha DeWitt; Igor Tsaur; Axel Haferkamp; Stacy Loeb
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Distrust of the health care system and self-reported health in the United States.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Abigail Rose; Nikki Peters; Judith A Long; Suzanne McMurphy; Judy A Shea
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Has the use of complementary and alternative medicine therapies by U.S. adults with chronic disease-related functional limitations changed from 2002 to 2007?

Authors:  Catherine A Okoro; Guixiang Zhao; Chaoyang Li; Lina S Balluz
Journal:  J Altern Complement Med       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 2.579

5.  The Potential of Twitter as a Data Source for Patient Safety.

Authors:  Atul Nakhasi; Sarah G Bell; Ralph J Passarella; Michael J Paul; Mark Dredze; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 2.844

6.  Can Twitter improve your health? An analysis of alcohol consumption guidelines on Twitter.

Authors:  Emma Hughes
Journal:  Health Info Libr J       Date:  2016-03

Review 7.  Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Evan R Myers; Patricia Moorman; Jennifer M Gierisch; Laura J Havrilesky; Lars J Grimm; Sujata Ghate; Brittany Davidson; Ranee Chatterjee Mongtomery; Matthew J Crowley; Douglas C McCrory; Amy Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Twitter response to the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against screening with prostate-specific antigen.

Authors:  Vinay Prabhu; Ted Lee; Stacy Loeb; John H Holmes; Heather T Gold; Herbert Lepor; David F Penson; Danil V Makarov
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-03-25       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Communication about childhood obesity on Twitter.

Authors:  Jenine K Harris; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Rachel G Tabak; Lindsay R Ruhr; Ryan C Maier
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Using Twitter for breast cancer prevention: an analysis of breast cancer awareness month.

Authors:  Rosemary Thackeray; Scott H Burton; Christophe Giraud-Carrier; Stephen Rollins; Catherine R Draper
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  13 in total

1.  Communication About Hereditary Cancers on Social Media: A Content Analysis of Tweets About Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome.

Authors:  Caitlin G Allen; Megan Roberts; Brittany Andersen; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Using Facebook Live to Advocate Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Hilda H Tso; Jay R Parikh
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  New Data Resources, Linkages, and Infrastructure for Cancer Health Economics Research: Main Topics From a Panel Discussion.

Authors:  Stacie B Dusetzina PhD; Lindsey Enewold Mph PhD; Danielle Gentile PhD; Scott D Ramsey Md PhD; Michael T Halpern
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2022-07-05

4.  Pretrained Transformer Language Models Versus Pretrained Word Embeddings for the Detection of Accurate Health Information on Arabic Social Media: Comparative Study.

Authors:  Yahya Albalawi; Nikola S Nikolov; Jim Buckley
Journal:  JMIR Form Res       Date:  2022-06-29

5.  Evaluation of Parental Perspectives and Concerns About Pediatric Tonsillectomy in Social Media.

Authors:  Tai Kyung Hairston; Anne R Links; Vandra Harris; David E Tunkel; Jonathan Walsh; Mary Catherine Beach; Emily F Boss
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 6.223

6.  Multiple approaches to enhancing cancer communication in the next decade: translating research into practice and policy.

Authors:  Claire C Conley; Amy K Otto; Glynnis A McDonnell; Kenneth P Tercyak
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 3.046

Review 7.  Global Perceptions of Women on Breast Cancer and Barriers to Screening.

Authors:  Mariah Mascara; Constantina Constantinou
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2021-05-03       Impact factor: 5.075

8.  Increasing Interest of Mass Communication Media and the General Public in the Distribution of Tweets About Mental Disorders: Observational Study.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Alvarez-Mon; Angel Asunsolo Del Barco; Guillermo Lahera; Javier Quintero; Francisco Ferre; Victor Pereira-Sanchez; Felipe Ortuño; Melchor Alvarez-Mon
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 5.428

9.  Exploring the Extent of the Hikikomori Phenomenon on Twitter: Mixed Methods Study of Western Language Tweets.

Authors:  Victor Pereira-Sanchez; Miguel Angel Alvarez-Mon; Angel Asunsolo Del Barco; Melchor Alvarez-Mon; Alan Teo
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 5.428

10.  "Clicks, likes, shares and comments" a systematic review of breast cancer screening discourse in social media.

Authors:  Bence Döbrössy; Edmond Girasek; Anna Susánszky; Zsuzsa Koncz; Zsuzsa Győrffy; Virág Katalin Bognár
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.