Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35490223›Full record

Observational studyBMC cancer2022

Understanding the lived experience of lung cancer: a European social media listening study.

Ana Rodrigues, Jyoti Chauhan, Alexandros Sagkriotis, Sathyaraj Aasaithambi, Michele Montrone

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Social listening for the identification of information voids on early childhood caries based on Google search data.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Ana RodriguesMedical Oncology, Instituto Português de Oncologia do Porto Francisco Gentil, EPE, Porto, Portugal. rodriguesana@me.com.
Jyoti ChauhanNovartis Healthcare Pvt Ltd (H.A.), Hyderabad, India.
Alexandros SagkriotisNovo Nordisk Health Care AG, Zürich, Switzerland.
Sathyaraj AasaithambiNovartis Healthcare Pvt Ltd (H.A.), Hyderabad, India.
Michele MontroneMedical Thoracic Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II", Bari, Italy.
Novartis (India) · INIPO Porto · PTIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITNovo Nordisk (Switzerland) · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media platforms are increasingly being used by stakeholders to generate, access, and share health-related information and experiences. Lung cancer is the most common cancer, impacting > 2 million patients globally. This observational study utilized a social listening approach to analyze social media trends and gain insights into stakeholder perceptions of lung cancer.

methodsThis social media study retrospectively collated data from open access blogs, forums, and social networking sites. Social media posts were collected between June 2019-May 2020 from 14 European countries. Using social media aggregator tools, posts comprising lung cancer and non-small cell lung cancer-specific terms were extracted. Manual and automated relevancy algorithms filtered the extracted information to provide the relevant dataset. This contextualized dataset was further mined to generate the final data for analysis.

resultsOf 1360 conversations analyzed, 42% were generated by patients/caregivers and 14% by healthcare professionals (HCPs). A majority of patients were 51-70 years old (approximately 50%) and 91% (n = 500/550) had late-stage cancer. Treatment (35%) and disease awareness (30%) were among the most discussed topic of the patient journey. Although the overall treatment sentiment was neutral, chemotherapy was the treatment type with the highest associated negative sentiment (28%); fewer negative sentiments were associated with immunotherapy (9%) and targeted therapy (2%), due to perceptions of longer survival outcomes and fewer side effects. In conversations that discussed clinical endpoints, "survivability" and "overall survival" (47 and 30%, respectively; n = 539) were most frequently mentioned by stakeholders. HCPs mostly used technical terms, whereas patients and caregivers used colloquial terms such as "getting rid of cancer". Emotional wellness was identified to have a huge impact on quality of life in lung cancer. Delay or treatment cancellations due to COVID-19, lack of effective treatments and funding, and lack of empathy by physicians emerged as the key unmet needs among patients/caregivers.

conclusionsSocial listening proved to be an effective tool to explore stakeholders' perceptions and their key unmet needs, typically not available in published literature or databases, and provides HCPs with valuable insights into the distress, doubts, and needs of lung cancer patients and caregivers.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCOVID-19Lung NeoplasmsSocial MediaAgedHumansMiddle AgedQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesLung cancerNon-small cell lung cancerPatient journeyQuality of lifeReal-world evidenceSocial mediaSocial media listening

Identifiers

PMID35490223
PMCPMC9055221
OpenAlexW4225123698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.