The Social Media Industry as a Commercial Determinant of Health

Social media and the spread of misinformation: infectious and a threat to public health

Misinformation has been identified as a major threat to society and public health. Social media significantly contributes to the spread of misinformation and has a global reach. Health misinformation has a range of adverse outcomes, including influencing individuals' decisions (e.g. choosing not to vaccinate), and the erosion of trust in authoritative institutions. There are many interrelated causes of the misinformation problem, including the ability of non-experts to rapidly post information, the influence of bots and social media algorithms. Equally, the global nature of social media, limited commitment for action from social media giants, and rapid technological advancements hamper progress for improving information quality and accuracy in this setting. In short, it is a problem that requires a constellation of synergistic actions aimed at social media users, content creators, companies, and governments. A public health approach to social media-based misinformation that includes tertiary, secondary, and primary prevention may help address immediate impacts, long-term consequences, and root causes of misinformation. Tertiary prevention to 'treat' this problem involves increased monitoring, misinformation debunking, and warning labels on social media posts that are at a high risk of containing misinformation. Secondary prevention strategies include nudging interventions (e.g. prompts about preventing misinformation that appear when sharing content) and education to build media and information literacy. Finally, there is an urgent need for primary prevention, including systems-level changes to address key mechanisms of misinformation and international law to regulate the social media industry. Anything less means misinformation-and its societal consequences-will continue to spread.

Effects of the Modern Digital Information Environment on Maternal Health Care Professionals, the Role of Midwives, and the People in Their Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The digital information environment poses challenges for pregnant women and other people seeking care, as well as for their midwives and other health care professionals (HCPs). They can encounter questions, concerns, information gaps, and misinformation, which can influence health care decisions.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review examines how HCPs are affected by the modern digital information environment including health misinformation, its effects on the women and people they care for, and its implications for care provision.

METHODS

English-language peer-reviewed literature, published from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2024, with keywords related to midwifery, misinformation, and health equity collected and analyzed by a team of midwives and maternal care professionals and mapped onto a patient-centered conceptual model.

RESULTS

A total of 105 studies were ultimately included. Further, 95 papers identified specific digital information environment issues that affected clients; 58 specifically highlighted digital information environment issues impacting HCPs; 91 papers identified specific topics of common questions, concerns, misinformation, information voids, or narratives; 57 papers identified patient or population vulnerability; and 75 included mentions of solutions or recommendations for addressing a digital information environment issue around clients seeking care from midwives and other HCPs. When mapped onto the Journey to Health model, the most prominent barrier was access to care and information. Individual-level issues dominate the step related to knowledge, awareness, and belief, with more social norms and wider engagement appearing at steps related to intent. Client-specific themes dominate the left-hand side of the model and provider-specific issues dominate the right-hand side of the model.

CONCLUSIONS

Misinformation, information voids, unaddressed questions and concerns, and lack of access to high-quality health information are worldwide prevalent barriers that affect both patients and HCPs. We identified individual, provider-level, health systems, and societal-level strategies that can be used to promote healthier digital information environments.

Contemporary dental tourism: a review of reporting in the UK news media

Introduction The number of people seeking dental tourism increased in recent years and has peaked in popularity with young people following a wave of viral social media content. Dental professionals have expressed their concern about the short- and long-term consequences. This study aimed to explore the contemporary United Kingdom (UK) media narrative toward dental tourism.Methods Newspaper articles were identified using the LexisNexis database. The ten most popular newspapers in the UK were used for the search strategy. Data were analysed using framework analysis. The findings are presented as descriptive and analytical themes.Findings The search strategy identified 201 newspaper articles related to dental tourism. A total of 131 articles were included in the analysis. Five key themes were identified. The themes included: push and pull factors reported to lead to seeking dentistry abroad; patient-reported outcomes and experiences; warnings from dental professionals; amplifying social media hype; and media shaming and stigmatising.Conclusions Social media viral health trends were a means of distributing health (dis/mis)information. The perspectives of social media were amplified by the UK press. Tabloids often stigmatised people who had dentistry abroad.

Corporate activities that influence population health: a scoping review and qualitative synthesis to develop the HEALTH-CORP typology

INTRODUCTION

The concept of the commercial determinants of health (CDH) is used to study the actions of commercial entities and the political and economic systems, structures, and norms that enable these actions and ultimately influence population health and health inequity. The aim of this study was to develop a typology that describes the diverse set of activities through which commercial entities influence population health and health equity across industries.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to identify articles using CDH terms (n = 116) published prior to September 13, 2022 that discuss corporate activities that can influence population health and health equity across 16 industries. We used the qualitative constant comparative method to inductively code descriptions and examples of corporate activities within these articles, arrange the activities into descriptive domains, and generate an overarching typology.

RESULTS

The resulting Corporate Influences on Population Health (HEALTH-CORP) typology identifies 70 corporate activities that can influence health across industries, which are categorized into seven domains of corporate influence (i.e., political practices, preference and perception shaping practices, corporate social responsibility practices, economic practices, products & services, employment practices, and environmental practices). We present a model that situates these domains based on their proximity to health outcomes and identify five population groups (i.e., consumers, workers, disadvantaged groups, vulnerable groups, and local communities) to consider when evaluating corporate health impacts.

DISCUSSION

The HEALTH-CORP typology facilitates an understanding of the diverse set of corporate activities that can influence population health and the population groups affected by these activities. We discuss how the HEALTH-CORP model and typology could be used to support the work of policy makers and civil society actors, as well as provide the conceptual infrastructure for future surveillance efforts to monitor corporate practices that affect health across industries. Finally, we discuss two gaps in the CDH literature that we identified based on our findings: the lack of research on environmental and employment practices and a dearth of scholarship dedicated to investigating corporate practices in low- and middle-income countries. We propose potential avenues to address these gaps (e.g., aligning CDH monitoring with other occupational health monitoring initiatives).

Selling Misleading "Cancer Cure" Books on Amazon: Systematic Search on Amazon.com and Thematic Analysis

BACKGROUND

While the evidence base on web-based cancer misinformation continues to develop, relatively little is known about the extent of such information on the world's largest e-commerce website, Amazon. Multiple media reports indicate that Amazon may host on its platform questionable cancer-related products for sale, such as books on purported cancer cures. This context suggests an urgent need to evaluate Amazon.com for cancer misinformation.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to (1) examine to what extent are misleading cancer cure books for sale on Amazon.com and (2) determine how cancer cure books on Amazon.com provide misleading cancer information.

METHODS

We searched "cancer cure" on Amazon.com and retrieved the top 1000 English-language book search results. We reviewed the books' descriptions and titles to determine whether the books provided misleading cancer cure or treatment information. We considered a book to be misleading if it suggested scientifically unsupported cancer treatment approaches to cure or meaningfully treat cancer. Among books coded as misleading, we conducted an inductive latent thematic analysis to determine the informational value the books sought to offer.

RESULTS

Nearly half (494/1000, 49.4%) of the sampled "cancer cure" books for sale on Amazon.com appeared to contain misleading cancer treatment and cure information. Overall, 17 (51.5%) out of 33 Amazon.com results pages had 50% or more of the books coded as misleading. The first search result page had the highest percentage of misleading books (23/33, 69.7%). Misleading books (n=494) contained eight themes: (1) claims of efficacious cancer cure strategies (n=451, 91.3%), (2) oversimplifying cancer and cancer treatment (n=194, 39.3%), (3) falsely justifying ineffective treatments as science based (n=189, 38.3%), (4) discrediting conventional cancer treatments (n=169, 34.2%), (5) finding the true cause of cancer (n=133, 26.9%), (6) homogenizing cancer (n=132, 26.7%), (7) discovery of new cancer treatments (n=119, 24.1%), and (8) cancer cure suppression (n=82, 16.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that misleading cancer cure books are for sale, visible, and prevalent on Amazon.com, with prominence in initial search hits. These misleading books for sale on Amazon can be conceived of as forming part of a wider, cross-platform, web-based information environment in which misleading cancer cures are often given prominence. Our results suggest that greater enforcement is needed from Amazon and that cancer-focused organizations should engage in preemptive misinformation debunking.

Alternative cancer clinics' use of Google listings and reviews to mislead potential patients

Background

Alternative cancer clinics, who provide treatment associated with earlier time to death, actively seek to create favorable views of their services online. An unexplored means where alternative cancer clinics can shape their appeal is their Google search results.

Methods

We retrieved the Google listing and Google reviews of 47 prominent alternative cancer clinics on August 22, 2022. We then conducted a content analysis to assess the information cancer patients are faced with online.

Results

Google listings of alternative treatment providers rarely declared the clinic was an alternative clinic versus a conventional primary cancer treatment provider (12.8% declared; 83.0% undeclared). The clinics were highly rated (median, 4.5 stars of 5). Reasons for positive reviews included treatment quality (n = 519), care (n = 420), and outcomes (n = 316). 288 reviews presented the clinics to cure or improve cancer. Negative reviews presented alternative clinics to financially exploit patients with ineffective treatment (n = 98), worsen patients' condition (n = 72), provide poor care (n = 41), and misrepresent outcomes (n = 23).

Conclusions

The favorable Google listing and reviews of alternative clinics contribute to harmful online ecosystems. Reviews provide compelling narratives but are an ineffective indicator of treatment outcomes. Google lacks safeguards for truthful reviews and should not be used for medical decision-making.

Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine Hesitancy: 2020 California Health Interview Survey

Although the COVID-19 vaccine is a key intervention against the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine hesitancy is a barrier to vaccination coverage, leading to a higher risk of COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. To reduce vaccine hesitancy, the factors affecting it must be addressed. Based on the determinants of health approach, this study aimed to investigate whether the distribution of determinants of health differed between the vaccine hesitancy group and the vaccine acceptance group and to identify determinants of participants' hesitancy to receive the COVID-19 vaccine if it was available. This study utilized the 2020 California Health Interview Survey Data collected between May and December 2020. Data were collected using a population-based web and telephone health survey. Data from 21,949 participants in California were included, and 4,183 (23.4 %) showed vaccine hesitancy. The following determinants were positively associated with vaccine hesitancy: female sex, Black and American Indian/Alaskan Native ethnicity, smoking, poverty, U.S.-born citizen, frequent use of social media, food insecurity, and limited healthcare access. Older age, not having severe psychological distress, not having diabetes, and high perceived safety in the neighborhood were negatively associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. This study also found that higher use of social media potentially threatened vaccine uptake, whereas frequent internet use was negatively associated with vaccine hesitancy. Public health and other relevant service providers should address the determinants of vaccine hesitancy and develop effective strategies and interventions for vaccine-hesitant groups.

Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this advertising remain unknown. This context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically analyze the advertising activities of prominent alternative cancer treatment practitioners on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Audience Network. We specifically sought to determine (1) whether paid advertising for alternative cancer treatment occurs on Meta social media platforms, (2) the strategies and messages of alternative cancer providers to reach and appeal to prospective patients, and (3) how the efficacy of alternative treatments is portrayed.

METHODS

Between December 6, 2021, and December 12, 2021, we collected active advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ad Library. The information collected included identification number, URL, active/inactive status, dates launched/ran, advertiser page name, and a screenshot (image) or recording (video) of the advertisement. We then conducted a content analysis to determine how alternative cancer providers communicate the claimed benefits of their services and evaluated how they portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

We identified 310 paid advertisements from 11 alternative cancer clinics on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger) marketing alternative treatment approaches, care, and interventions. Alternative cancer providers appealed to prospective patients through eight strategies: (1) advertiser representation as a legitimate medical provider (n=289, 93.2%); (2) appealing to persons with limited treatments options (n=203, 65.5%); (3) client testimonials (n=168, 54.2%); (4) promoting holistic approaches (n=121, 39%); (5) promoting messages of care (n=81, 26.1%); (6) rhetoric related to science and research (n=72, 23.2%); (7) rhetoric pertaining to the latest technology (n=63, 20.3%); and (8) focusing treatment on cancer origins and cause (n=43, 13.9%). Overall, 25.8% (n=80) of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide evidence alternative cancer providers are using Meta advertising products to market scientifically unsupported cancer treatments. Advertisements regularly referenced "alternative" and "natural" treatment approaches to cancer. Imagery and text content that emulated evidence-based medical providers created the impression that the offered treatments were effective medical options for cancer. Advertisements exploited the hope of patients with terminal and poor prognoses by sharing testimonials of past patients who allegedly were cured or had their lives prolonged. We recommend that Meta introduce a mandatory, human-led authorization process that is not reliant upon artificial intelligence for medical-related advertisers before giving advertising permissions. Further research should focus on the conflict of interest between social media platforms advertising products and public health.

Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health

Although commercial entities can contribute positively to health and society there is growing evidence that the products and practices of some commercial actors-notably the largest transnational corporations-are responsible for escalating rates of avoidable ill health, planetary damage, and social and health inequity; these problems are increasingly referred to as the commercial determinants of health. The climate emergency, the non-communicable disease epidemic, and that just four industry sectors (ie, tobacco, ultra-processed food, fossil fuel, and alcohol) already account for at least a third of global deaths illustrate the scale and huge economic cost of the problem. This paper, the first in a Series on the commercial determinants of health, explains how the shift towards market fundamentalism and increasingly powerful transnational corporations has created a pathological system in which commercial actors are increasingly enabled to cause harm and externalise the costs of doing so. Consequently, as harms to human and planetary health increase, commercial sector wealth and power increase, whereas the countervailing forces having to meet these costs (notably individuals, governments, and civil society organisations) become correspondingly impoverished and disempowered or captured by commercial interests. This power imbalance leads to policy inertia; although many policy solutions are available, they are not being implemented. Health harms are escalating, leaving health-care systems increasingly unable to cope. Governments can and must act to improve, rather than continue to threaten, the wellbeing of future generations, development, and economic growth.

Back to our roots or sowing new seeds: thinking anew on the paradigms of health, harm and disease

Health, harms and disease are intimately linked, and their promotion and distribution are determined by the social, political and physical worlds in which people live. Yet, the popular narrative on health is still dominated by a biological model that focuses on a disease-causing 'pathogen' or 'agent' that leads to pathology which is diagnosable and amenable to intervention at the individual level via measures delivered through the health care and public health systems. This model generally rests on understanding populations as a collection of individuals, with the pattern of disease seen as the sum of a series of risk factors acting on each of them. Too little attention is paid to the ways in which health, harm, disease, causation and risk are conceptualized and used as guiding concepts in research, policy debates and other fora. We often overlook the distribution of health and the regulatory regimes, norms, values and rights that promote or undermine health. By challenging our ways of thinking about health, harms and disease, we can start to appreciate with greater depth the ways in which health can be threatened and what should be seen as harmful, and conversely, opportunities for moving our systems towards promoting and protecting health.