Skip to main content
Log in

“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

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract is a “micro-blogging” website. Although Twitter use is growing rapidly, little is known about health behavior discussions on this site, even though a majority of messages are publicly available. We retrieved publicly available Twitter messages during a 5-week period in early 2012, searching separately for the terms “Pap smear” and “mammogram.” We used content analysis to code each 140-character message, generating a separate coding framework for each cancer screening term and calculating the frequencies of comments. Using the brief account description, we also coded the author as individual, organization, or news media outlet. There were 203 Pap smear and 271 mammogram messages coded, over three fourths of which were from individual accounts. Overall, 22 % of Pap smear messages and 25 % of mammogram messages discussed personal experiences, including attending appointments, negative sentiment about the procedure, and results. Other messages from both individuals and organizations (8 % Pap smear, 18 % mammogram) promoted screening. About one quarter of the messages expressed personal experiences with cancer screening. This demonstrates that Twitter can be a rich source of information and could be used to design new health-related interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Chou WY, Hunt YM, Beckjord EB, Moser RP, Hesse BW (2009) Social media use in the United States: implications for health communication. J Med Internet Res 11(4):e48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. The social skinny (2012) 99 New Social Media Stats for 2012, Available at Accessed 29 May 2012

  3. Gibbons MC, Casale CR (2010) Reducing disparities in health care quality: the role of health IT in underresourced settings. Med Care Res Rev 67(5 Suppl):155S–162S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2010) Mobile health 2010. Available from Accessed 23 April 2012

  5. Rajani R, Berman DS, Rozanski A (2011) Social networks-are they good for your health? The era of Facebook and Twitter. Qjm Int J Med 104(9):819–820

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hawn C (2009) Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Heal Aff 28(2):361–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harlow S, Johnson TJ (2011) Overthrowing the protest paradigm? How The New York Times, Global Voices and Twitter covered the Egyptian Revolution. Int J Comm 5:1359–1374

    Google Scholar 

  8. St Louis C, Zorlu G (2012) Can Twitter predict disease outbreaks? BMJ 344:e2353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Signorini A, Segre AM, Polgreen PM (2011) The use of twitter to track levels of disease activity and public concern in the US during the Influenza A H1N1 pandemic. Plos One 6(5):e19467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Moore RJ (2009) Twitter data analysis: an investor’s perspective. Available from Accessed 29 April 2012

  11. eMarketer (2011) U.S. Digital media usage: a snapshot of 2012

  12. Pew Internet & American Life Project (2012) Twitter use 2012: Pew Research Center, Available at Accessed 9 July 2012

  13. eMarketer (2012) Facebook’s US user growth slows but Twitter sees double-digit gains

  14. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Recommendations for adults, Available at Accessed 9 July 2012

  15. Pope C, Mays N (1995) Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach—an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health-services research. Br Med J 311(6996):42–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sandelowski M (2000) Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Heal 23(4):334–340

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 24(2):105–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Moyer VA (2012) Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 156(12):880–891

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoyo C, Yarnall KS, Skinner CS, Moorman PG, Sellers D, Reid L (2005) Pain predicts non-adherence to Pap smear screening among middle-aged African American women. Prev Med 41(2):439–445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Waller J, Marlow LA, Wardle J (2009) Anticipated shame and worry following an abnormal Pap test result: the impact of information about HPV. Prev Med 48(5):415–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kahn JA, Slap GB, Bernstein DI et al (2007) Personal meaning of human papillomavirus and Pap test results in adolescent and young adult women. Health Psychol 26(2):192–200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hislop TG, Harris SR, Jackson J et al (2002) Satisfaction and anxiety for women during investigation of an abnormal screening mammogram. Breast Canc Res Treat 76(3):245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Montgomery M, McCrone SH (2010) Psychological distress associated with the diagnostic phase for suspected breast cancer: systematic review. J Adv Nurs 66(11):2372–2390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor VM, Yasui Y, Nguyen TT et al (2009) Pap smear receipt among Vietnamese immigrants: the importance of health care factors. Ethn Heal 14(6):575–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Blewett LA, Johnson PJ, Lee B, Scal PB (2008) When a usual source of care and usual provider matter: adult prevention and screening services. J Gen Intern Med 23(9):1354–1360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


All authors have fulfilled the criteria for authorship established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and approved submission of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

None of the authors had conflicts of interest. Dr. Sarkar was supported by a AHRQ career development award K08 HS017594. None of the funders had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Courtney R. Lyles.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

R. Lyles, C., López, A., Pasick, R. et al. “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 Canc Educ 28, 127–133 (2013).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: