Cargando…
Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis
BACKGROUND: Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
JMIR Publications
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10267786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37256649 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/43548 |
_version_ | 1785058999792566272 |
---|---|
author | Zenone, Marco Snyder, Jeremy Bélisle-Pipon, Jean-Christophe Caulfield, Timothy van Schalkwyk, May Maani, Nason |
author_facet | Zenone, Marco Snyder, Jeremy Bélisle-Pipon, Jean-Christophe Caulfield, Timothy van Schalkwyk, May Maani, Nason |
author_sort | Zenone, Marco |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this advertising remain unknown. This context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically analyze the advertising activities of prominent alternative cancer treatment practitioners on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Audience Network. We specifically sought to determine (1) whether paid advertising for alternative cancer treatment occurs on Meta social media platforms, (2) the strategies and messages of alternative cancer providers to reach and appeal to prospective patients, and (3) how the efficacy of alternative treatments is portrayed. METHODS: Between December 6, 2021, and December 12, 2021, we collected active advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ad Library. The information collected included identification number, URL, active/inactive status, dates launched/ran, advertiser page name, and a screenshot (image) or recording (video) of the advertisement. We then conducted a content analysis to determine how alternative cancer providers communicate the claimed benefits of their services and evaluated how they portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy. RESULTS: We identified 310 paid advertisements from 11 alternative cancer clinics on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger) marketing alternative treatment approaches, care, and interventions. Alternative cancer providers appealed to prospective patients through eight strategies: (1) advertiser representation as a legitimate medical provider (n=289, 93.2%); (2) appealing to persons with limited treatments options (n=203, 65.5%); (3) client testimonials (n=168, 54.2%); (4) promoting holistic approaches (n=121, 39%); (5) promoting messages of care (n=81, 26.1%); (6) rhetoric related to science and research (n=72, 23.2%); (7) rhetoric pertaining to the latest technology (n=63, 20.3%); and (8) focusing treatment on cancer origins and cause (n=43, 13.9%). Overall, 25.8% (n=80) of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide evidence alternative cancer providers are using Meta advertising products to market scientifically unsupported cancer treatments. Advertisements regularly referenced “alternative” and “natural” treatment approaches to cancer. Imagery and text content that emulated evidence-based medical providers created the impression that the offered treatments were effective medical options for cancer. Advertisements exploited the hope of patients with terminal and poor prognoses by sharing testimonials of past patients who allegedly were cured or had their lives prolonged. We recommend that Meta introduce a mandatory, human-led authorization process that is not reliant upon artificial intelligence for medical-related advertisers before giving advertising permissions. Further research should focus on the conflict of interest between social media platforms advertising products and public health. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10267786 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | JMIR Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-102677862023-06-15 Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis Zenone, Marco Snyder, Jeremy Bélisle-Pipon, Jean-Christophe Caulfield, Timothy van Schalkwyk, May Maani, Nason JMIR Infodemiology Original Paper BACKGROUND: Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this advertising remain unknown. This context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically analyze the advertising activities of prominent alternative cancer treatment practitioners on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Audience Network. We specifically sought to determine (1) whether paid advertising for alternative cancer treatment occurs on Meta social media platforms, (2) the strategies and messages of alternative cancer providers to reach and appeal to prospective patients, and (3) how the efficacy of alternative treatments is portrayed. METHODS: Between December 6, 2021, and December 12, 2021, we collected active advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ad Library. The information collected included identification number, URL, active/inactive status, dates launched/ran, advertiser page name, and a screenshot (image) or recording (video) of the advertisement. We then conducted a content analysis to determine how alternative cancer providers communicate the claimed benefits of their services and evaluated how they portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy. RESULTS: We identified 310 paid advertisements from 11 alternative cancer clinics on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger) marketing alternative treatment approaches, care, and interventions. Alternative cancer providers appealed to prospective patients through eight strategies: (1) advertiser representation as a legitimate medical provider (n=289, 93.2%); (2) appealing to persons with limited treatments options (n=203, 65.5%); (3) client testimonials (n=168, 54.2%); (4) promoting holistic approaches (n=121, 39%); (5) promoting messages of care (n=81, 26.1%); (6) rhetoric related to science and research (n=72, 23.2%); (7) rhetoric pertaining to the latest technology (n=63, 20.3%); and (8) focusing treatment on cancer origins and cause (n=43, 13.9%). Overall, 25.8% (n=80) of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide evidence alternative cancer providers are using Meta advertising products to market scientifically unsupported cancer treatments. Advertisements regularly referenced “alternative” and “natural” treatment approaches to cancer. Imagery and text content that emulated evidence-based medical providers created the impression that the offered treatments were effective medical options for cancer. Advertisements exploited the hope of patients with terminal and poor prognoses by sharing testimonials of past patients who allegedly were cured or had their lives prolonged. We recommend that Meta introduce a mandatory, human-led authorization process that is not reliant upon artificial intelligence for medical-related advertisers before giving advertising permissions. Further research should focus on the conflict of interest between social media platforms advertising products and public health. JMIR Publications 2023-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10267786/ /pubmed/37256649 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/43548 Text en ©Marco Zenone, Jeremy Snyder, Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon, Timothy Caulfield, May van Schalkwyk, Nason Maani. Originally published in JMIR Infodemiology (https://infodemiology.jmir.org), 31.05.2023. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Infodemiology, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://infodemiology.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Zenone, Marco Snyder, Jeremy Bélisle-Pipon, Jean-Christophe Caulfield, Timothy van Schalkwyk, May Maani, Nason Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis |
title | Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis |
title_full | Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis |
title_fullStr | Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis |
title_short | Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis |
title_sort | advertising alternative cancer treatments and approaches on meta social media platforms: content analysis |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10267786/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37256649 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/43548 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zenonemarco advertisingalternativecancertreatmentsandapproachesonmetasocialmediaplatformscontentanalysis AT snyderjeremy advertisingalternativecancertreatmentsandapproachesonmetasocialmediaplatformscontentanalysis AT belislepiponjeanchristophe advertisingalternativecancertreatmentsandapproachesonmetasocialmediaplatformscontentanalysis AT caulfieldtimothy advertisingalternativecancertreatmentsandapproachesonmetasocialmediaplatformscontentanalysis AT vanschalkwykmay advertisingalternativecancertreatmentsandapproachesonmetasocialmediaplatformscontentanalysis AT maaninason advertisingalternativecancertreatmentsandapproachesonmetasocialmediaplatformscontentanalysis |