Gaps in Public Awareness About BRCA and Genetic Testing in Prostate Cancer: Social Media Landscape Analysis.
BRCA
breast cancer
genetic testing
infodemiology
prostate cancer
social media
Journal
JMIR cancer
ISSN: 2369-1999
Titre abrégé: JMIR Cancer
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101666844
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Sep 2021
20 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
09
01
2021
accepted:
01
06
2021
revised:
08
04
2021
entrez:
20
9
2021
pubmed:
21
9
2021
medline:
21
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Genetic testing, particularly for BRCA1/2, is increasingly important in prostate cancer (PCa) care, with impact on PCa management and hereditary cancer risk. However, the extent of public awareness and online discourse on social media is unknown, and presents opportunities to identify gaps and enhance population awareness and uptake of advances in PCa precision medicine. The objective of this study was to characterize activity and engagement across multiple social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube) regarding BRCA and genetic testing for PCa compared with breast cancer, which has a long history of public awareness, advocacy, and prominent social media presence. The Symplur Signals online analytics platform was used to obtain metrics for tweets about (1) #BRCA and #breastcancer, (2) #BRCA and #prostatecancer, (3) #genetictesting and #breastcancer, and (4) #genetictesting and #prostatecancer from 2016 to 2020. We examined the total number of tweets, users, and reach for each hashtag, and performed content analysis for a subset of tweets. Facebook and YouTube were queried using analogous search terms, and engagement metrics were calculated. During a 5-year period, there were 10,005 tweets for #BRCA and #breastcancer, versus 1008 tweets about #BRCA and #prostatecancer. There were also more tweets about #genetictesting and #breastcancer (n=1748), compared with #genetic testing and #prostatecancer (n=328). Tweets about genetic testing (12,921,954) and BRCA (75,724,795) in breast cancer also had substantially greater reach than those about PCa (1,463,777 and 4,849,905, respectively). Facebook groups and pages regarding PCa and BRCA/genetic testing had fewer average members, new members, and new posts, as well as fewer likes and followers, compared with breast cancer. Facebook videos had more engagement than YouTube videos across both PCa and breast cancer content. There is substantially less social media engagement about BRCA and genetic testing in PCa compared with breast cancer. This landscape analysis provides insights into strategies for leveraging social media platforms to increase public awareness about PCa germline testing, including use of Facebook to share video content and Twitter for discussions with health professionals.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Genetic testing, particularly for BRCA1/2, is increasingly important in prostate cancer (PCa) care, with impact on PCa management and hereditary cancer risk. However, the extent of public awareness and online discourse on social media is unknown, and presents opportunities to identify gaps and enhance population awareness and uptake of advances in PCa precision medicine.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to characterize activity and engagement across multiple social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube) regarding BRCA and genetic testing for PCa compared with breast cancer, which has a long history of public awareness, advocacy, and prominent social media presence.
METHODS
METHODS
The Symplur Signals online analytics platform was used to obtain metrics for tweets about (1) #BRCA and #breastcancer, (2) #BRCA and #prostatecancer, (3) #genetictesting and #breastcancer, and (4) #genetictesting and #prostatecancer from 2016 to 2020. We examined the total number of tweets, users, and reach for each hashtag, and performed content analysis for a subset of tweets. Facebook and YouTube were queried using analogous search terms, and engagement metrics were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
During a 5-year period, there were 10,005 tweets for #BRCA and #breastcancer, versus 1008 tweets about #BRCA and #prostatecancer. There were also more tweets about #genetictesting and #breastcancer (n=1748), compared with #genetic testing and #prostatecancer (n=328). Tweets about genetic testing (12,921,954) and BRCA (75,724,795) in breast cancer also had substantially greater reach than those about PCa (1,463,777 and 4,849,905, respectively). Facebook groups and pages regarding PCa and BRCA/genetic testing had fewer average members, new members, and new posts, as well as fewer likes and followers, compared with breast cancer. Facebook videos had more engagement than YouTube videos across both PCa and breast cancer content.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There is substantially less social media engagement about BRCA and genetic testing in PCa compared with breast cancer. This landscape analysis provides insights into strategies for leveraging social media platforms to increase public awareness about PCa germline testing, including use of Facebook to share video content and Twitter for discussions with health professionals.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34542414
pii: v7i3e27063
doi: 10.2196/27063
pmc: PMC8550715
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e27063Informations de copyright
©Stacy Loeb, Philip Massey, Amy E Leader, Sameer Thakker, Emily Falge, Sabina Taneja, Nataliya Byrne, Meredith Rose, Matthew Joy, Dawn Walter, Matthew S Katz, Risa L Wong, Preethi Selvan, Scott W Keith, Veda N Giri. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 20.09.2021.
Références
Eur Urol. 2019 Apr;75(4):564-567
pubmed: 30502104
BJU Int. 2017 Oct;120(4):461-463
pubmed: 28471484
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Jul;7(4):890-893
pubmed: 32295754
J Health Commun. 2014;19(6):639-59
pubmed: 23557148
J Health Commun. 2014;19(2):210-25
pubmed: 24111482
BJU Int. 2018 Nov;122(5):723-725
pubmed: 29786946
Cancer Treat Res Commun. 2020;25:100212
pubmed: 33091732
J Health Commun. 2018;23(2):181-189
pubmed: 29313761
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 May 1;17(5):515-521
pubmed: 31085765
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Nov 10;38(32):3763-3772
pubmed: 32795228
Urol Oncol. 2017 Feb;35(2):37.e19-37.e28
pubmed: 27810256
BJU Int. 2020 Jul;126(1):11-13
pubmed: 32275800
Health Promot Pract. 2013 Jan;14(1):15-23
pubmed: 21558472
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Jan;22(1):243-56
pubmed: 25005606
Am J Prev Med. 2011 May;40(5 Suppl 2):S154-8
pubmed: 21521589
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 20;38(24):2798-2811
pubmed: 32516092
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2017;37:128-137
pubmed: 28561647
J Cancer Surviv. 2017 Dec;11(6):808-821
pubmed: 28601981
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2091-2102
pubmed: 32343890
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 4;375(5):443-53
pubmed: 27433846
Eur Urol. 2019 May;75(5):743-749
pubmed: 30309687