Impact of COVID-19 on social media as perceived by the oncology community: results from a survey in collaboration with the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the OncoAlert Network.

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of modern-day oncology, including how stakeholders communicate through social media. We surveyed oncology stakeholders in order to assess their attitudes pertaining to social media and how it has been affected during the pandemic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 40-item survey was distributed to stakeholders from 8 July to 22 July 2020 and was promoted through the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the OncoAlert Network.

RESULTS

One thousand and seventy-six physicians and stakeholders took part in the survey. In total, 57.3% of respondents were medical oncologists, 50.6% aged <40 years, 50.8% of female gender and mostly practicing in Europe (51.5%). More than 90% of respondents considered social media a useful tool for distributing scientific information and for education. Most used social media to stay up to date on cancer care in general (62.5%) and cancer care during COVID-19 (61%) given the constant flow of information. Respondents also used social media to interact with other oncologists (78.8%) and with patients (34.4%). Overall, 61.1% of respondents were satisfied with the role that social media was playing during the COVID-19 pandemic. On the other hand, 41.1% of respondents reported trouble in discriminating between credible and less credible information and 30% stated social networks were a source of stress. For this reason, one-third of respondents reduced its use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding meeting attendance, a total of 59.1% of responding physicians preferred in-person meetings to virtual ones, and 51.8% agreed that virtual meetings and social distancing could hamper effective collaboration.

CONCLUSION

Social media has a useful role in supporting cancer care and professional engagement in oncology. Although one-third of respondents reported reduced use of social media due to stress during the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority found social media useful to keep up to date and were satisfied with the role social media was playing during the pandemic.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Disclosure ML acted as a consultant for Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Lilly and received speaker honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda and Sandoz. MT declares travel, accommodation, expenses supported by Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and activity as a medical writer supported by Novartis and Amgen. AL declares travel and educational support from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, Sirtex, Novartis, Mylan and Delcath; speaker honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, Incyte and AAA; advisory honoraria from EISAI, Nutricia Ipsen, QED and Roche; she is a member of the NETCONNECT Initiative funded by Ipsen; all these are outside the scope of the present work. SPilotto acted as a consultant for AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD and Roche, and received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD and Roche, outside the scope of the present work. CC received honoraria for speaker, consultancy or advisory role from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and MSD. RD has declared advisory roles for Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer, has received a speaker's fee from Roche, Ipsen, Amgen, Servier, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and research grants from Merck and Pierre Fabre. MScheffler Advisory role, speaker: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. Personal research support: Amgen, Dracen Pharmaceuticals. BW received personal and speaker fees, reimbursements for travel and accommodation and honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Bayer, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Ipsen, Shire/Baxalta, Sirtex and Taiho and a scientific grant supported by Roche. AC: Honoraria/consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Eli Lilly and Company, Takeda, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme and Bristol-Myers Squibb. SPeters has received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory boards and/or provided lectures for the following organizations, from whom I have received honoraria (all fees to institution): consultation/advisory role: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Incyte, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda. Talk in a company's organized public event: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Illumina, Medscape, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime, Sanofi, Takeda. Receipt of grants/research supports: (sub)investigator in trials (institutional financial support for clinical trials) sponsored by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, GSK, Illumina, Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Mirati, Novartis, and Pfizer, Phosplatin Therapeutics. EdA reports having received honoraria and advisory board for Roche/GNE, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Zodiac, Lubbs and Pierre Fabre. He reports having received travel grants from Roche/GNE, GSK, and Novartis. He reports having received institutional grants for his institute from Roche/GNE, AstraZeneca, Novartis and Servier outside the submitted work. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.