Claire Jungyoun Han1, Young Ji Lee, George Demiris. 1. Author Affiliations: Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, School of Medicine, and Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, School of Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle (Drs Han and Demiris); and Department of Health and Community Systems, School of Nursing, and Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania (Dr Lee).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regarding cancer awareness, social media effectively promotes health and supports self-management. Given the diverse study designs, methodologies, and approaches of social media interventions in oncology, it is difficult to determine the effects of social media on cancer prevention and management. OBJECTIVE: We aim to systematically review intervention studies using social media for cancer care. METHODS: A systematic search, using 7 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, and PsycINFO), was conducted to identify surveys and interventions using contemporary social media tools with a focus on cancer. RESULTS: Of the 18 selected studies, 7 were randomized controlled trials. Most studies were conducted for all types of cancer, and some were conducted for breast cancer in the United States, with mostly white female participants. Facebook was the most frequently used platform. Most studies targeted healthy participants providing cancer prevention education. With social media platforms as part of a larger intervention, or the main component of interventions, interventions were overall feasible and showed a significant improvement in cancer prevention and management. CONCLUSIONS: Social media tools have the potential to be effective in delivering interventions for cancer prevention and management. However, there was a dearth of studies with rigorous study methodologies to test social media effects on various cancer-related clinical outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Social media use in cancer care will facilitate improved communication and support among patients, caregivers, and clinicians and, ultimately, improved patient care. Clinicians need to carefully harness social media to enhance patient care and clinical outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Regarding cancer awareness, social media effectively promotes health and supports self-management. Given the diverse study designs, methodologies, and approaches of social media interventions in oncology, it is difficult to determine the effects of social media on cancer prevention and management. OBJECTIVE: We aim to systematically review intervention studies using social media for cancer care. METHODS: A systematic search, using 7 electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, EMBASE, and PsycINFO), was conducted to identify surveys and interventions using contemporary social media tools with a focus on cancer. RESULTS: Of the 18 selected studies, 7 were randomized controlled trials. Most studies were conducted for all types of cancer, and some were conducted for breast cancer in the United States, with mostly white female participants. Facebook was the most frequently used platform. Most studies targeted healthy participants providing cancer prevention education. With social media platforms as part of a larger intervention, or the main component of interventions, interventions were overall feasible and showed a significant improvement in cancer prevention and management. CONCLUSIONS: Social media tools have the potential to be effective in delivering interventions for cancer prevention and management. However, there was a dearth of studies with rigorous study methodologies to test social media effects on various cancer-related clinical outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Social media use in cancer care will facilitate improved communication and support among patients, caregivers, and clinicians and, ultimately, improved patient care. Clinicians need to carefully harness social media to enhance patient care and clinical outcomes.
Authors: Joan L Bottorff; Laura L Struik; Laura J L Bissell; Raquel Graham; Jodie Stevens; Chris G Richardson Journal: Collegian Date: 2014 Impact factor: 2.573
Authors: Deanna J Attai; Michael S Cowher; Mohammed Al-Hamadani; Jody M Schoger; Alicia C Staley; Jeffrey Landercasper Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sara Beltrán Ponce; Maura M Barry; Don S Dizon; Matthew S Katz; Martina Murphy; Eleonora Teplinsky; Stacey Tinianov; Deanna J Attai; Merry Jennifer Markham Journal: Future Oncol Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 3.674
Authors: Joseph M Unger; Dawn L Hershman; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Anirudh Gothwal; Seerat Anand; Arvind Dasari; Michael Overman; Jonathan M Loree; Kanwal Raghav Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-04-24
Authors: Ashleigh C Hamilton; David W Donnelly; Maurice B Loughrey; Richard C Turkington; Colin Fox; Deirdre Fitzpatrick; Ciaran E O'Neill; Anna T Gavin; Helen G Coleman Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 9.075
Authors: Emily G Miller; Amanda L Woodward; Grace Flinchum; Jennifer L Young; Holly K Tabor; Meghan C Halley Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Désirée Schliemann; Darishiani Paramasivam; Maznah Dahlui; Christopher R Cardwell; Saunthari Somasundaram; Nor Saleha Binti Ibrahim Tamin; Conan Donnelly; Tin Tin Su; Michael Donnelly Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 4.430