ArticleBMC women's health2021
Breast cancer on social media: a quali-quantitative study on the credibility and content type of the most shared news stories.
Article in BMC women's health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Examining the Effectiveness of Social Media for the Dissemination of Research Evidence for Health and Social Care Practitioners: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Investigating Online Discussions About Cancer Screening on Twitter (Subsequently Rebranded as X): Corpus Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the quality of Japanese YouTube videos on breast cancer treatment using PRHISM: comparison by source credibility.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2026Article
- Analysis of Breast Cancer Information on Facebook Using Neural Network-Based Topic Modeling and Metadata Analysis of English and Spanish Content: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Examining BRCA Previvors' Social Media Content Creation as a Form of Self and Community Care: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A roadmap to reduce the incidence and mortality of breast cancer by rethinking our approach to women's health.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Review
- Unpleasant but effective: Newspaper coverage of cancer screening and cancer in the Netherlands from 2010 to 2022.PloS one · 2025Article
- Socio-Economic Inequalities in Beliefs About Cancer and its Causes: Evidence From two Population Surveys.Psycho-oncology · 2024Article
- Social Media Campaigns: A Game Changer for the Prevention of Breast Cancer in Romania.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Characterizing user demographics in posts related to breast, lung and colon cancer on Japanese twitter (X).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- 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.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Content Quality of YouTube Videos About Metastatic Breast Cancer in Young Women: Systematic Assessment.JMIR cancer · 2023Article
- Fact-Checking Cancer Information on Social Media in Japan: Retrospective Study Using Twitter.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Article
- How TikTok Is Being Used to Help Individuals Cope With Breast Cancer: Cross-sectional Content Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2022Article
- Understanding the Social Mechanism of Cancer Misinformation Spread on YouTube and Lessons Learned: Infodemiological Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Breast cancer prevention and treatment misinformation on Twitter: An analysis of two languages.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFemale breast cancer was the most diagnosed cancer in 2020, with more than two million new cases worldwide. Access to scientifically correct information can assist patients in early detection or prevention of the disease. However, misinformation on social networking sites (SNSs) about breast cancer can be propagated rapidly, posing a threat to health communication efforts. The aim of this study is to analyse the characteristics of the most shared news stories referencing the disease that circulated on SNSs, including the credibility of this content.
methodsThis is an exploratory quali-quantitative study. Data collection was conducted between June 2019 and June 2020. We performed statistical and content analysis of the stories that had at least 1,000 total shares. Each story was classified in accordance to the following aspects: credibility; type of rumour; source; content type; mentions prevention or early detection/screening exams.
resultsThe abundance of news stories in our sample (n = 1,594) were not classified according to their credibility, as they do not address science, risk factors, prevention, treatment, or other aspects which can be assessed for scientific accuracy. However, content classified as "rumours" are 3.29 times more shared than those considered scientifically correct. Regarding content type, most stories are classified as 'real-life story' or 'solidarity' (67.69%). In our sample, 5.08% of the total comment on prevention and 19.7% reference early detection.
conclusionWe consider it can be a good strategy, in SNSs, to combine content of greater popularity, such as real-life stories, with subjects that can make a difference in a patient's life, such as early detection, breast cancer symptoms and disease prevention strategies. Doctors, scientists and health journalists can expand the dialogue with the lay public regarding breast cancer, helping to counteract online misinformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.