» Articles » PMID: 30327289

Nature and Diffusion of Gynecologic Cancer-Related Misinformation on Social Media: Analysis of Tweets

Overview
Publisher JMIR Publications
Date 2018 Oct 18
PMID 30327289
Citations 36
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Over the last two decades, the incidence and mortality rates of gynecologic cancers have increased at a constant rate in China. Gynecologic cancers have become one of the most serious threats to women's health in China. With the widespread use of social media, an increasing number of individuals have employed social media to produce, seek, and share cancer-related information. However, health information on social media is not always accurate. Health, and especially cancer-related, misinformation has been widely spread on social media, which can affect individuals' attitudinal and behavioral responses to cancer.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the nature and diffusion of gynecologic cancer-related misinformation on Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter.

Methods: A total of 2691 tweets related to 2 gynecologic cancers-breast cancer and cervical cancer-posted on Weibo from June 2015 to June 2016 were extracted using the Python Web Crawler. Two medical school graduate students with expertise in gynecologic diseases were recruited to code the tweets to differentiate between true information and misinformation as well as to identify the types of falsehoods. The diffusion characteristics of gynecologic cancer-related misinformation were compared with those of the true information.

Results: While most of the gynecologic cancer-related tweets provided medically accurate information, approximately 30% of them were found to contain misinformation. Furthermore, it was found that tweets about cancer treatment contained a higher percentage of misinformation than prevention-related tweets. Nevertheless, the prevention-related misinformation diffused significantly more broadly and deeply than true information on social media.

Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest the need for controlling and reducing the cancer-related misinformation on social media with the efforts from both service providers and medical professionals. More specifically, it is important to correct falsehoods related to the prevention of gynecologic cancers on social media and increase individuals' capacity to assess the veracity of Web-based information to curb the spread and thus minimize the consequences of cancer-related misinformation.

Citing Articles

Identifying Misinformation About Unproven Cancer Treatments on Social Media Using User-Friendly Linguistic Characteristics: Content Analysis.

Fridman I, Boyles D, Chheda R, Baldwin-SoRelle C, Smith A, Lafata J JMIR Infodemiology. 2025; 5:e62703.

PMID: 39938078 PMC: 11888050. DOI: 10.2196/62703.


A Survey on the Criteria Used to Judge (Fake) News in Italian Population.

Battista F, Lanciano T, Curci A Brain Behav. 2025; 15(2):e70315.

PMID: 39935047 PMC: 11813807. DOI: 10.1002/brb3.70315.


Alternative Health and Conventional Medicine Discourse About Cancer on TikTok: Computer Vision Analysis of TikTok Videos.

Muenster R, Gangi K, Margolin D J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e60283.

PMID: 39652864 PMC: 11667741. DOI: 10.2196/60283.


Addressing cancer survivors' information needs and satisfaction: a systematic review of potential intervention components for survivors with a rare cancer type.

Farrugia T, Duijts S, Wilson C, Hemming L, Cockburn C, Spelten E Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2024; 19(1):387.

PMID: 39425097 PMC: 11488126. DOI: 10.1186/s13023-024-03403-7.


Results of the Italian cross-sectional web-based survey "Nutrition and breast cancer, what would you like to know?" An attempt to collect and respond to patients' information needs, through social media.

Caprara G, Pagan E, Titta L, Tieri M, Magionesi G, Gallosti S Front Oncol. 2024; 14:1436610.

PMID: 39386191 PMC: 11461502. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1436610.


References
1.
Del Vicario M, Bessi A, Zollo F, Petroni F, Scala A, Caldarelli G . The spreading of misinformation online. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016; 113(3):554-9. PMC: 4725489. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1517441113. View

2.
Gage-Bouchard E, LaValley S, Warunek M, Beaupin L, Mollica M . Is Cancer Information Exchanged on Social Media Scientifically Accurate?. J Cancer Educ. 2017; 33(6):1328-1332. PMC: 5775059. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-017-1254-z. View

3.
Hawn C . Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009; 28(2):361-8. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.2.361. View

4.
Song H, Omori K, Kim J, Tenzek K, Morey Hawkins J, Lin W . Trusting Social Media as a Source of Health Information: Online Surveys Comparing the United States, Korea, and Hong Kong. J Med Internet Res. 2016; 18(3):e25. PMC: 4810010. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4193. View

5.
Vogel L . Viral misinformation threatens public health. CMAJ. 2017; 189(50):E1567. PMC: 5738254. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.109-5536. View