Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Cancer Education 3/2018

01-06-2018

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

Authors: Anthony Nastasi, Tyler Bryant, Joseph K. Canner, Mark Dredze, Melissa S. Camp, Neeraja Nagarajan

Published in: Journal of Cancer Education | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Alnemer KA, Alhuzaim WM, Alnemer AA, Alharbi BB, Bawazir AS, Barayyan OR, Balaraj FK (2015) Are health-related tweets evidence based? Review and analysis of health-related tweets on twitter. J Med Internet Res 17(10):e246. doi:10.2196/jmir.4898 PubMedPubMedCentral Alnemer KA, Alhuzaim WM, Alnemer AA, Alharbi BB, Bawazir AS, Barayyan OR, Balaraj FK (2015) Are health-related tweets evidence based? Review and analysis of health-related tweets on twitter. J Med Internet Res 17(10):e246. doi:10.​2196/​jmir.​4898 PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Barnes PM, Bloom B, Nahin RL (2008) Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007. Natl Health Stat Report 12:1–23 Barnes PM, Bloom B, Nahin RL (2008) Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007. Natl Health Stat Report 12:1–23
5.
go back to reference Borgmann H, DeWitt S, Tsaur I, Haferkamp A, Loeb S (2015) Novel survey disseminated through Twitter supports its utility for networking, disseminating research, advocacy, clinical practice and other professional goals. Can Urol Assoc J 9(9–10):E713–E717. doi:10.5489/cuaj.3014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Borgmann H, DeWitt S, Tsaur I, Haferkamp A, Loeb S (2015) Novel survey disseminated through Twitter supports its utility for networking, disseminating research, advocacy, clinical practice and other professional goals. Can Urol Assoc J 9(9–10):E713–E717. doi:10.​5489/​cuaj.​3014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Lyles CR, Lopez A, Pasick R, Sarkar U (2013) “5 mins of uncomfyness is better than dealing with cancer 4 a lifetime”: an exploratory qualitative analysis of cervical and breast cancer screening dialogue on Twitter. J Cancer Educ 28(1):127–133. doi:10.1007/s13187-012-0432-2 CrossRefPubMed Lyles CR, Lopez A, Pasick R, Sarkar U (2013) “5 mins of uncomfyness is better than dealing with cancer 4 a lifetime”: an exploratory qualitative analysis of cervical and breast cancer screening dialogue on Twitter. J Cancer Educ 28(1):127–133. doi:10.​1007/​s13187-012-0432-2 CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Okoro CA, Zhao G, Li C, Balluz LS (2013) Has the use of complementary and alternative medicine therapies by U.S. adults with chronic disease-related functional limitations changed from 2002 to 2007? J Altern Complement Med 19(3):217–223. doi:10.1089/acm.2012.0009 Okoro CA, Zhao G, Li C, Balluz LS (2013) Has the use of complementary and alternative medicine therapies by U.S. adults with chronic disease-related functional limitations changed from 2002 to 2007? J Altern Complement Med 19(3):217–223. doi:10.​1089/​acm.​2012.​0009
17.
go back to reference Prabhu V, Lee T, Loeb S, Holmes JH, Gold HT, Lepor H, Penson DF, Makarov DV (2015) Twitter response to the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against screening with prostate-specific antigen. BJU Int 116(1):65–71. doi:10.1111/bju.12748 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Prabhu V, Lee T, Loeb S, Holmes JH, Gold HT, Lepor H, Penson DF, Makarov DV (2015) Twitter response to the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against screening with prostate-specific antigen. BJU Int 116(1):65–71. doi:10.​1111/​bju.​12748 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP 3rd, Foster RS Jr, Hendrick E, Eyre HJ, Sener S (2003) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53(3):141–169CrossRefPubMed Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP 3rd, Foster RS Jr, Hendrick E, Eyre HJ, Sener S (2003) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53(3):141–169CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Titler MG (2008) The evidence for evidence-based practice implementation. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville (MD) Titler MG (2008) The evidence for evidence-based practice implementation. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville (MD)
Metadata
Title
Breast Cancer Screening and Social Media: a Content Analysis of Evidence Use and Guideline Opinions on Twitter
Authors
Anthony Nastasi
Tyler Bryant
Joseph K. Canner
Mark Dredze
Melissa S. Camp
Neeraja Nagarajan
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0885-8195
Electronic ISSN: 1543-0154
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1168-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Journal of Cancer Education 3/2018 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine