ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2020
Spreading Ideas: TED Talks' Role in Cancer Communication and Public Engagement.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) Talks have represented a broad source of health communication since 1984. However, to date, no studies exist on how this tool addresses the question of cancer. In this paper, we aim to illuminate two major issues: (1) Are TED Talks a good source for cancer communication? (2) How does the public respond to cancer-related TED Talk lectures? To this end, we searched for the keyword 'cancer' on the TED.com website in January 2018. All transcripts were obtained along with related information such as numbers of views, like and dislike rates. We also analysed a sample of 938 comments, corresponding to the 10 most relevant (if existing) regarding each video on TED.com and YouTube platforms. From the 49 videos pertaining to cancer, 33 were scientific-related, whereas 11 focused on speakers' personal experiences. Only three videos approached prevention themes of major relevance for cancer communication to broad audiences. Instead, they brought more therapy (16) and diagnosis (12) issues and often promoted exaggerated extrapolations of research results (20). Scientific lectures also made frequent use of a 'bad vs. good' duality discourse by criticizing current science/policies and then offering a solution/hope. Regarding the public response, non-scientific lectures had more negative votes than scientific counterparts. Moreover, the audience exhibited two major motivations to provide a comment: to judge the lectures and to share personal stories. We believe that our observations are of considerable relevance for helping in enhancing this tool as a substantial cancer communication source.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31350685What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.