Social media for public health: an exploratory policy analysis

Breast cancer prevention and treatment misinformation on Twitter: An analysis of two languages

Objective

To determine the prevalence and types of misinformation on Twitter related to breast cancer prevention and treatment; and compare the differences between the misinformation in English and Malay tweets.

Methods

A total of 6221 tweets related to breast cancer posted between 2018 and 2022 were collected. An oncologist and two pharmacists coded the tweets to differentiate between true information and misinformation, and to analyse the misinformation content. Binary logistic regression was conducted to identify determinants of misinformation.

Results

There were 780 tweets related to breast cancer prevention and treatment, and 456 (58.5%) contain misinformation, with significantly more misinformation in Malay compared to English tweets (OR = 6.18, 95% CI: 3.45-11.07, p < 0.001). Other determinants of misinformation were tweets posted by product sellers and posted before the COVID-19 pandemic. Less misinformation was associated with tweets utilising official/peer-reviewed sources of information compared to tweets without external sources and those that utilised less reliable information sources. The top three most common content of misinformation were food and lifestyle, alternative medicine and supplements, comprising exaggerated claims of anti-cancer properties of traditional and natural-based products.

Conclusion

Misinformation on breast cancer prevention and treatment is prevalent on social media, with significantly more misinformation in Malay compared to English tweets. Our results highlighted that patients need to be educated on digital health literacy, with emphasis on utilising reliable sources of information and being cautious of any promotional materials that may contain misleading information. More studies need to be conducted in other languages to address the disparity in misinformation.

Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review

Background

Although at present there is broad agreement among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers on the need to control and combat health misinformation, the magnitude of this problem is still unknown. Consequently, it is fundamental to discover both the most prevalent health topics and the social media platforms from which these topics are initially framed and subsequently disseminated.

Objective

This systematic review aimed to identify the main health misinformation topics and their prevalence on different social media platforms, focusing on methodological quality and the diverse solutions that are being implemented to address this public health concern.

Methods

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in English before March 2019, with a focus on the study of health misinformation in social media. We defined health misinformation as a health-related claim that is based on anecdotal evidence, false, or misleading owing to the lack of existing scientific knowledge. We included (1) articles that focused on health misinformation in social media, including those in which the authors discussed the consequences or purposes of health misinformation and (2) studies that described empirical findings regarding the measurement of health misinformation on these platforms.

Results

A total of 69 studies were identified as eligible, and they covered a wide range of health topics and social media platforms. The topics were articulated around the following six principal categories: vaccines (32%), drugs or smoking (22%), noncommunicable diseases (19%), pandemics (10%), eating disorders (9%), and medical treatments (7%). Studies were mainly based on the following five methodological approaches: social network analysis (28%), evaluating content (26%), evaluating quality (24%), content/text analysis (16%), and sentiment analysis (6%). Health misinformation was most prevalent in studies related to smoking products and drugs such as opioids and marijuana. Posts with misinformation reached 87% in some studies. Health misinformation about vaccines was also very common (43%), with the human papilloma virus vaccine being the most affected. Health misinformation related to diets or pro–eating disorder arguments were moderate in comparison to the aforementioned topics (36%). Studies focused on diseases (ie, noncommunicable diseases and pandemics) also reported moderate misinformation rates (40%), especially in the case of cancer. Finally, the lowest levels of health misinformation were related to medical treatments (30%).

Conclusions

The prevalence of health misinformation was the highest on Twitter and on issues related to smoking products and drugs. However, misinformation on major public health issues, such as vaccines and diseases, was also high. Our study offers a comprehensive characterization of the dominant health misinformation topics and a comprehensive description of their prevalence on different social media platforms, which can guide future studies and help in the development of evidence-based digital policy action plans.

Mixed messages: An evaluation of NHS Trust Social Media policies in the North West of England

INTRODUCTION

Despite National Health Service (NHS) information strategy promoting the use of Social Media (SoMe) to encourage greater engagement between service users and providers, a team investigating online SoMe interaction between breast screening practitioners and clients found that practitioners alleged discouragement from employers' policies. This study aimed to investigate whether this barrier was genuine, and illuminate whether local policy differed from national strategy.

METHOD

The study used a qualitative grounded theory approach to generate a theory. Nine policies from the North West of England were analysed. A framework was derived from the data, and an analysis of policy tone followed by a detailed coding of policy content was undertaken. Comparative analysis continued by reviewing the literature, and a condensed framework revealed five broad categories that policies addressed.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed the policies varied in content, but not in tone, which was mostly discouraging. Coding the content revealed that the most frequently addressed point was that of protecting the employers' reputation, and after further analysis, the resultant condensed framework showed that policies were imbalanced and heavily skewed towards Security, Conduct & Behaviour and Reputation.

CONCLUSION

Practitioners within breast screening services are discouraged by overly prohibitive and prescriptive SoMe policies; with these varying tremendously in comprehensiveness, but with a narrow focus on security and employers reputation; in contrast with national strategy. Recommendations are that policy revision is undertaken with consultation by more than one stakeholder, and SoMe training is offered for all members of NHS staff.

Effectiveness of Social Media Interventions for People With Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Recent studies have shown that people with serious mental disorders spend time online for the purposes of disclosure, information gathering, or gaming. However, coherent information on the effects of social media on treatment for people with schizophrenia is still lacking.

Objective

Our aim was to determine the effects of social media interventions for supporting mental health and well-being among people with schizophrenia.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to determine the effects of social media interventions for supporting mental health and well-being among people with schizophrenia. Ten databases were searched, while search parameters included English-only manuscripts published prior to June 25, 2015. Study appraisals were made independently by 2 reviewers, and qualitative and quantitative syntheses of data were conducted.

Results

Out of 1043 identified records, only two randomized studies of moderate quality (three records, total N=331, duration 12 months) met the inclusion criteria. Participants were people with schizophrenia spectrum or an affective disorder. Social media was used as part of Web-based psychoeducation, or as online peer support (listserv and bulletin board). Outcome measures included perceived stress, social support, and disease-related distress. At 3 months, participants with schizophrenia in the intervention group reported lower perceived stress levels ( P=.04) and showed a trend for a higher perceived level of social support ( P=.06). However, those who reported more positive experiences with the peer support group also reported higher levels of psychological distress ( P=.01).

Conclusions

Despite using comprehensive searches from 10 databases, we found only two studies, whereas numerous reports have been published citing the benefits of social media in mental health. Findings suggest the effects of social media interventions are largely unknown. More research is needed to understand the effects of social media, for users with and without mental illness, in order to determine the impact on mental well-being ofsocial media use as well as its risks.

Going "social" to access experimental and potentially life-saving treatment: an assessment of the policy and online patient advocacy environment for expanded access

Social media is fundamentally altering how we access health information and make decisions about medical treatment, including for terminally ill patients. This specifically includes the growing phenomenon of patients who use online petitions and social media campaigns in an attempt to gain access to experimental drugs through expanded access pathways. Importantly, controversy surrounding expanded access and "compassionate use" involves several disparate stakeholders, including patients, manufacturers, policymakers, and regulatory agencies-all with competing interests and priorities, leading to confusion, frustration, and ultimately advocacy. In order to explore this issue in detail, this correspondence article first conducts a literature review to describe how the expanded access policy and regulatory environment in the United States has evolved over time and how it currently impacts access to experimental drugs. We then conducted structured web searches to identify patient use of online petitions and social media campaigns aimed at compelling access to experimental drugs. This was carried out in order to characterize the types of communication strategies utilized, the diseases and drugs subject to expanded access petitions, and the prevalent themes associated with this form of "digital" patient advocacy. We find that patients and their families experience mixed results, but still gravitate towards the use of online campaigns out of desperation, lack of reliable information about treatment access options, and in direct response to limitations of the current fragmented structure of expanded access regulation and policy currently in place. In response, we discuss potential policy reforms to improve expanded access processes, including advocating greater transparency for expanded access programs, exploring use of targeted economic incentives for manufacturers, and developing systems to facilitate patient information about existing treatment options. This includes leveraging recent legislative attention to reform expanded access through the CURE Act Provisions contained in the proposed U.S. 21st Century Cures Act. While expanded access may not be the best option for the majority of individuals, terminally ill patients and their families nevertheless deserve better processes, policies, and availability to potentially life-changing information, before they decide to pursue an online campaign in the desperate hope of gaining access to experimental drugs.