↓ Skip to main content

Breast Cancer Screening and Social Media: a Content Analysis of Evidence Use and Guideline Opinions on Twitter

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cancer Education, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 629)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Breast Cancer Screening and Social Media: a Content Analysis of Evidence Use and Guideline Opinions on Twitter
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13187-017-1168-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony Nastasi, Tyler Bryant, Joseph K. Canner, Mark Dredze, Melissa S. Camp, Neeraja Nagarajan

Abstract

There is ongoing debate regarding the best mammography screening practices. Twitter has become a powerful tool for disseminating medical news and fostering healthcare conversations; however, little work has been done examining these conversations in the context of how users are sharing evidence and discussing current guidelines for breast cancer screening. To characterize the Twitter conversation on mammography and assess the quality of evidence used as well as opinions regarding current screening guidelines, individual tweets using mammography-related hashtags were prospectively pulled from Twitter from 5 November 2015 to 11 December 2015. Content analysis was performed on the tweets by abstracting data related to user demographics, content, evidence use, and guideline opinions. Standard descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Comparisons were made by demographics, tweet type (testable claim, advice, personal experience, etc.), and user type (non-healthcare, physician, cancer specialist, etc.). The primary outcomes were how users are tweeting about breast cancer screening, the quality of evidence they are using, and their opinions regarding guidelines. The most frequent user type of the 1345 tweets was "non-healthcare" with 323 tweets (32.5%). Physicians had 1.87 times higher odds (95% CI, 0.69-5.07) of providing explicit support with a reference and 11.70 times higher odds (95% CI, 3.41-40.13) of posting a tweet likely to be supported by the scientific community compared to non-healthcare users. Only 2.9% of guideline tweets approved of the guidelines while 14.6% claimed to be confused by them. Non-healthcare users comprise a significant proportion of participants in mammography conversations, with tweets often containing claims that are false, not explicitly backed by scientific evidence, and in favor of alternative "natural" breast cancer prevention and treatment. Furthermore, users appear to have low approval and confusion regarding screening guidelines. These findings suggest that more efforts are needed to educate and disseminate accurate information to the general public regarding breast cancer prevention modalities, emphasizing the safety of mammography and the harms of replacing conventional prevention and treatment modalities with unsubstantiated alternatives.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 13 28%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Computer Science 7 15%
Engineering 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,540,686
of 13,906,652 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cancer Education
#39
of 629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,410
of 348,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cancer Education
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,906,652 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 629 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.