Use of Social Media to Promote Cancer Screening and Early Diagnosis: Scoping Review.
campaign
cancer
cancer screening
early detection of cancer
health care disparities
health promotion
public health
review
social media
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 11 2020
09 11 2020
Historique:
received:
19
06
2020
accepted:
01
10
2020
revised:
11
09
2020
entrez:
9
11
2020
pubmed:
10
11
2020
medline:
2
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Social media is commonly used in public health interventions to promote cancer screening and early diagnosis, as it can rapidly deliver targeted public health messages to large numbers of people. However, there is currently little understanding of the breadth of social media interventions and evaluations, whether they are effective, and how they might improve outcomes. This scoping review aimed to map the evidence for social media interventions to improve cancer screening and early diagnosis, including their impact on behavior change and how they facilitate behavior change. Five databases and the grey literature were searched to identify qualitative and quantitative evaluations of social media interventions targeting cancer screening and early diagnosis. Two reviewers independently reviewed each abstract. Data extraction was carried out by one author and verified by a second author. Data on engagement was extracted using an adapted version of the key performance indicators and metrics related to social media use in health promotion. Insights, exposure, reach, and differing levels of engagement, including behavior change, were measured. The behavior change technique taxonomy was used to identify how interventions facilitated behavior change. Of the 23 publications and reports included, the majority (16/23, 70%) evaluated national cancer awareness campaigns (eg, breast cancer awareness month). Most interventions delivered information via Twitter (13/23, 57%), targeted breast cancer (12/23, 52%), and measured exposure, reach, and low- to medium-level user engagement, such as number of likes (9/23, 39%). There were fewer articles about colorectal and lung cancer than about breast and prostate cancer campaigns. One study found that interventions had less reach and engagement from ethnic minority groups. A small number of articles (5/23, 22%) suggested that some types of social media interventions might improve high-level engagement, such as intended and actual uptake of screening. Behavior change techniques, such as providing social support and emphasizing the consequences of cancer, were used to engage users. Many national campaigns delivered fundraising messages rather than actionable health messages. The limited evidence suggests that social media interventions may improve cancer screening and early diagnosis. Use of evaluation frameworks for social media interventions could help researchers plan more robust evaluations that measure behavior change. We need a greater understanding of who engages with these interventions to know whether social media can be used to reduce some health inequalities in cancer screening and early diagnosis. RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033592.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Social media is commonly used in public health interventions to promote cancer screening and early diagnosis, as it can rapidly deliver targeted public health messages to large numbers of people. However, there is currently little understanding of the breadth of social media interventions and evaluations, whether they are effective, and how they might improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
This scoping review aimed to map the evidence for social media interventions to improve cancer screening and early diagnosis, including their impact on behavior change and how they facilitate behavior change.
METHODS
Five databases and the grey literature were searched to identify qualitative and quantitative evaluations of social media interventions targeting cancer screening and early diagnosis. Two reviewers independently reviewed each abstract. Data extraction was carried out by one author and verified by a second author. Data on engagement was extracted using an adapted version of the key performance indicators and metrics related to social media use in health promotion. Insights, exposure, reach, and differing levels of engagement, including behavior change, were measured. The behavior change technique taxonomy was used to identify how interventions facilitated behavior change.
RESULTS
Of the 23 publications and reports included, the majority (16/23, 70%) evaluated national cancer awareness campaigns (eg, breast cancer awareness month). Most interventions delivered information via Twitter (13/23, 57%), targeted breast cancer (12/23, 52%), and measured exposure, reach, and low- to medium-level user engagement, such as number of likes (9/23, 39%). There were fewer articles about colorectal and lung cancer than about breast and prostate cancer campaigns. One study found that interventions had less reach and engagement from ethnic minority groups. A small number of articles (5/23, 22%) suggested that some types of social media interventions might improve high-level engagement, such as intended and actual uptake of screening. Behavior change techniques, such as providing social support and emphasizing the consequences of cancer, were used to engage users. Many national campaigns delivered fundraising messages rather than actionable health messages.
CONCLUSIONS
The limited evidence suggests that social media interventions may improve cancer screening and early diagnosis. Use of evaluation frameworks for social media interventions could help researchers plan more robust evaluations that measure behavior change. We need a greater understanding of who engages with these interventions to know whether social media can be used to reduce some health inequalities in cancer screening and early diagnosis.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033592.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33164907
pii: v22i11e21582
doi: 10.2196/21582
pmc: PMC7683249
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e21582Informations de copyright
©Ruth Plackett, Aradhna Kaushal, Angelos P Kassianos, Aaron Cross, Douglas Lewins, Jessica Sheringham, Jo Waller, Christian von Wagner. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 09.11.2020.
Références
BMC Cancer. 2013 Oct 29;13:508
pubmed: 24168075
Lancet. 2010 Oct 9;376(9748):1261-71
pubmed: 20933263
Health Educ Behav. 2015 Jun;42(3):352-60
pubmed: 25512072
Public Health Nurs. 2019 Mar;36(2):164-171
pubmed: 30370687
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
J Cancer Educ. 2016 Sep;31(3):602-4
pubmed: 25877466
J Health Commun. 2017 Mar;22(3):243-253
pubmed: 28248621
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2016 Apr 28;2(1):e17
pubmed: 27227152
J Glob Oncol. 2016 Aug 31;3(2):169-176
pubmed: 28717755
J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 19;15(8):e177
pubmed: 23958635
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Sep;19(9):2272-7
pubmed: 20660602
Lung Cancer. 2015 Apr;88(1):104-7
pubmed: 25704958
Mhealth. 2016 Nov 7;2:
pubmed: 27840816
Ann Coloproctol. 2016 Oct;32(5):184-189
pubmed: 27847789
J Environ Public Health. 2017;2017:2819372
pubmed: 28408935
Fam Cancer. 2016 Apr;15(2):351-5
pubmed: 26753801
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 07;19(6):e200
pubmed: 28592395
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Oct 16;19(10):e344
pubmed: 29038096
NPJ Digit Med. 2018;1:
pubmed: 30854472
BMC Cancer. 2019 Jun 11;19(1):566
pubmed: 31185949
Ann Behav Med. 2013 Aug;46(1):81-95
pubmed: 23512568
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Nov 27;11(4):e48
pubmed: 19945947
Am J Public Health. 2014 Jul;104(7):e20-37
pubmed: 24832403
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014 May;41(3):E203-10
pubmed: 24769603
Health Promot Pract. 2013 Jan;14(1):15-23
pubmed: 21558472
Soc Sci Med. 2012 Aug;75(4):612-21
pubmed: 22541798
BMJ Open. 2020 Feb 25;10(2):e033592
pubmed: 32102815
Proc Int Conf Web Search Data Min. 2017 Feb;2017:537-546
pubmed: 28345078
J Cancer Educ. 2016 Jun;31(2):236-43
pubmed: 25649663
Annu Rev Public Health. 2020 Apr 2;41:101-118
pubmed: 31905322
J Health Commun. 2018;23(2):181-189
pubmed: 29313761
J Glob Oncol. 2019 Apr;5:1-20
pubmed: 30969807
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
J Health Commun. 2015;20(2):237-43
pubmed: 25495200
Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2016 Apr;36(4):63-75
pubmed: 27077792
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Aug;15(8):963-7
pubmed: 23656572
Public Health Res Pract. 2015 Mar 30;25(2):e2521517
pubmed: 25848735
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Dec 19;21(12):e16661
pubmed: 31855185
Postgrad Med J. 2013 Jul;89(1053):390-3
pubmed: 23572594
Am J Mens Health. 2017 Nov;11(6):1627-1641
pubmed: 26669771
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 09;16:15
pubmed: 26857112
J Cancer Educ. 2016 Sep;31(3):559-66
pubmed: 25903054
Prev Med. 2020 Jun;135:106071
pubmed: 32243938
J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2018 Jan;22(1):8-12
pubmed: 29271850
Cancer Control. 2019 Jan-Dec;26(1):1073274819825826
pubmed: 30816059
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Nov;103:267-273
pubmed: 30196989
Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2018 Jul 12;10:113-119
pubmed: 30034251
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Sep;23(9):1953-6
pubmed: 25103820
PLoS One. 2015 May 01;10(5):e0126608
pubmed: 25933397
Health Promot Pract. 2012 Mar;13(2):159-64
pubmed: 22382491
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017 Mar 23;3(1):e14
pubmed: 28336503
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Mar;54(3):385-393
pubmed: 29338956