Advertisement

Communication About Hereditary Cancers on Social Media: A Content Analysis of Tweets About Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome

  • Caitlin G. AllenEmail author
  • Megan Roberts
  • Brittany Andersen
  • Muin J. Khoury
Article

Abstract

Social media is increasingly being used as an information source and tool for individuals and organizations to share resources and engage in conversations about health topics. Because the public tends to learn about health topics and genetics from online social media sources, it is imperative to understand the amount, type, and quality of information being shared. We performed a retrospective analysis of tweets related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome (LS) between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. A total of 63,770 tweets were included in our dataset. The majority were retweets (59.9%) and users came from 744 different cities. Most tweets were considered “informational” (51.4%) and were designed to provide resources to the public. Online communities (25%), organizations (20%), and providers or researchers (15%) were among the most common contributors. Our results demonstrated that conversations were primarily focused on information and resource sharing, along with individuals discussing their personal stories and testimonials about their experiences with these HBOC and LS. Future studies could consider ways to harness Twitter to help tailor and deliver health communication campaigns and education interventions to improve the public’s understanding of these complex topics.

Keywords

Hereditary cancer Lynch syndrome Breast cancer Social media Health communication Twitter 

Notes

Supplementary material

13187_2018_1451_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen RA, Adams PF (2011) Use of the internet for health information: United States, 2009. NCHS Data Brief (66):1–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cline RJ, Haynes KM (2001) Consumer health information seeking on the internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res 16(6):671–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bender JL, Jimenez-Marroquin MC, Jadad AR (2011) Seeking support on facebook: a content analysis of breast cancer groups. J Med Internet Res 13(1):e16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Logan AG (2014) Community hypertension programs in the age of mobile technology and social media. Am J Hypertens 27(8):1033–1035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greene JA, Choudhry NK, Kilabuk E, Shrank WH (2011) Online social networking by patients with diabetes: a qualitative evaluation of communication with Facebook. J Gen Intern Med 26(3):287–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sugawara Y, Narimatsu H, Hozawa A, Shao L, Otani K, Fukao A (2012) Cancer patients on twitter: a novel patient community on social media. BMC Res Notes 5:699Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prochaska JJ, Coughlin SS, Lyons EJ (2017) Social media and Mobile Technology for Cancer Prevention and Treatment. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 37:128–137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nastasi A, Bryant T, Canner JK, Dredze M, Camp MS, Nagarajan N (2018) Breast Cancer screening and social media: a content analysis of evidence use and guideline opinions on twitter. J Cancer Educ 33(3):695–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frank C, Fallah M, Sundquist J, Hemminki A, Hemminki K (2015) Population landscape of familial Cancer. Sci Rep 5:12891CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moyer VA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2014) Risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer in women: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 160(4):271–281. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24366376
  11. 11.
    Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group (2009) Genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med 11(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cragun DL, Couch SC, Prows CA, Warren NS (2005) Christianson CA. A success of a genetics educational intervention for nursing and dietetic students: a model for incorporating genetics into nursing and allied health curricula. J Allied Health 34(2):90–96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hitlin P (2015) Methodology: how crimson hexagon works. Pew Research Center. http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/01/methodology-crimson-hexagon/. Accessed 15 March 2018
  14. 14.
    McKenna VB, Sixsmith J, Barry MM (2017) The relevance of context in understanding health literacy skills: findings from a qualitative study. Health Expect 20:1049–1060CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allen CG, Andersen B, Chambers DA, Groshek J, Roberts MC (2018) Twitter use at the 2016 conference on the science of dissemination and implementation in health: analyzing #DIScience16. Implement Sci 13(1):34CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Himelboim I, Han JY (2014) Cancer talk on twitter: community structure and information sources in breast and prostate cancer social networks. J Health Commun 19(2):210–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hopkins DJ, King G (2010) A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. Am J Polit Sci 54(1):229–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DiscoverText. Scholarly mentions of Discover Text 2018. https://discovertext.com/publications/. Accessed 15 March 2018
  19. 19.
    DiscoverText (2018) Text and Twitter Data AnalyticsGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Betton V, Borschmann R, Docherty M, Coleman S, Brown M, Henderson C (2015) The role of social media in reducing stigma and discrimination. Br J Psychiatry 206(6):443–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Marsch LA, Bartels SJ (2016) The future of mental health care: peer-to-peer support and social media. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 25(2):113–122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hong Y, Pena-Purcell NC, Ory MG (2012) Outcomes of online support and resources for cancer survivors: a systematic literature review. Patient Educ Couns 86(3):288–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lepore SJ, Buzaglo JS, Lieberman MA, Golant M, Greener JR, Davey A (2014) Comparing standard versus prosocial internet support groups for patients with breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial of the helper therapy principle. J Clin Oncol 32(36):4081–4086CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu S, Markson C, Costello KL, Xing CY, Demissie K, Llanos AA (2016) Leveraging social media to promote public health knowledge: example of Cancer awareness via twitter. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2(1):e17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brownson RC, Jacobs JA, Tabak RG, Hoehner CM, Stamatakis KA (2013) Designing for dissemination among public health researchers: findings from a national survey in the United States. Am J Public Health 103(9):1693–1699CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW, Nazareth I (2010) Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implement Sci 5(1):91CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keller B, Labrique A, Jain KM, Pekosz A, Levine O (2014) Mind the gap: social media engagement by public health researchers. J Med Internet Res 16(1):e8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Farmer AD, Bruckner Holt CE, Cook MJ, Hearing SD (2009) Social networking sites: a novel portal for communication. Postgrad Med J 85(1007):455–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jain SH (2009) Practicing medicine in the age of Facebook. N Engl J Med 361(7):649–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Merchant RM, Elmer S, Lurie N (2011) Integrating social media into emergency-preparedness efforts. N Engl J Med 365(4):289–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brownstein JS, Freifeld CC, Madoff LC (2009) Digital disease detection--harnessing the web for public health surveillance. N Engl J Med 360(21):2153–2155, 2157CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bakal G, Kavuluru R. On quantifying diffusion of health information on twitter. IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics 2017;2017:485–488Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Strecher VJ, McClure JB, Alexander GL et al (2008) Web-based smoking-cessation programs: results of a randomized trial. Am J Prev Med 34(5):373–381CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gibbons MC, Fleisher L, Slamon RE, Bass S, Kandadai V, Beck JR (2011) Exploring the potential of web 2.0 to address health disparities. J Health Commun 16(Suppl 1):77–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rollins School of Public HealthEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.The National Cancer InstituteRockvilleUSA
  3. 3.Boston UniversityBostonUSA
  4. 4.Office of Public Health GenomicsCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations