Cargando…
Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources
AIM: Social media (SM) can provide information and medical knowledge to patients. Our aim was to review the literature and web-based content on SM that is used by Colorectal Cancer (CRC) patients, as well as surgeons’ interaction with SM. METHOD: Studies published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568334/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28832603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183031 |
_version_ | 1783258841167691776 |
---|---|
author | Pellino, Gianluca Simillis, Constantinos Qiu, Shengyang Rasheed, Shahnawaz Mills, Sarah Warren, Oliver Kontovounisios, Christos Tekkis, Paris P. |
author_facet | Pellino, Gianluca Simillis, Constantinos Qiu, Shengyang Rasheed, Shahnawaz Mills, Sarah Warren, Oliver Kontovounisios, Christos Tekkis, Paris P. |
author_sort | Pellino, Gianluca |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: Social media (SM) can provide information and medical knowledge to patients. Our aim was to review the literature and web-based content on SM that is used by Colorectal Cancer (CRC) patients, as well as surgeons’ interaction with SM. METHOD: Studies published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed. We also assessed the impact of several hashtags on Twitter with a freeware (Symplur). RESULTS: Nine studies were included assessing Twitter (78%), Forums/Cancer-survivor networks (33%), and Facebook (22%). Aims included use of SM by CRC patients (67%), cancer-specific usage of SM with different types of cancer (44%), content credibility (33%), and influence in CRC awareness (33%). Prevention was the most common information that CRC patients looked for, followed by treatment side-effects. Only 2% of CRC SM users are doctors. SM use by colorectal consultants was suboptimal. Only 38% of surgeons had a LinkedIn account (most with less than 50 connections), and 3% used Twitter. A steep increase of tweets was observed for searched Hashtags over time, which was more marked for #ColonCancer (+67%vs+38%, #Coloncancer vs #RectalCancer). Participants engaged with colon cancer increased by 85%, whereas rectal cancer ones increased by 29%. The hashtag ‘#RectalCancer’ was mostly tweeted by colorectal surgeons. The official twitter account of American Society of Colorectal Surgeons (@fascrs_updates) was the most active account. CONCLUSION: CRC patients and relatives are increasingly engaging with SM. CRC surgeons’ participation is poor, but we confirm a trend toward a greater involvement. Most SM lack of authoritative validation and the quality of shared content still is largely anecdotic and not scientifically evidenced-based. However, SM may offer several advantages over conventional information sharing sources for CRC patients and surgeons, and create connections with mutual enrichment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5568334 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55683342017-09-09 Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources Pellino, Gianluca Simillis, Constantinos Qiu, Shengyang Rasheed, Shahnawaz Mills, Sarah Warren, Oliver Kontovounisios, Christos Tekkis, Paris P. PLoS One Research Article AIM: Social media (SM) can provide information and medical knowledge to patients. Our aim was to review the literature and web-based content on SM that is used by Colorectal Cancer (CRC) patients, as well as surgeons’ interaction with SM. METHOD: Studies published between 2006 and 2016 were assessed. We also assessed the impact of several hashtags on Twitter with a freeware (Symplur). RESULTS: Nine studies were included assessing Twitter (78%), Forums/Cancer-survivor networks (33%), and Facebook (22%). Aims included use of SM by CRC patients (67%), cancer-specific usage of SM with different types of cancer (44%), content credibility (33%), and influence in CRC awareness (33%). Prevention was the most common information that CRC patients looked for, followed by treatment side-effects. Only 2% of CRC SM users are doctors. SM use by colorectal consultants was suboptimal. Only 38% of surgeons had a LinkedIn account (most with less than 50 connections), and 3% used Twitter. A steep increase of tweets was observed for searched Hashtags over time, which was more marked for #ColonCancer (+67%vs+38%, #Coloncancer vs #RectalCancer). Participants engaged with colon cancer increased by 85%, whereas rectal cancer ones increased by 29%. The hashtag ‘#RectalCancer’ was mostly tweeted by colorectal surgeons. The official twitter account of American Society of Colorectal Surgeons (@fascrs_updates) was the most active account. CONCLUSION: CRC patients and relatives are increasingly engaging with SM. CRC surgeons’ participation is poor, but we confirm a trend toward a greater involvement. Most SM lack of authoritative validation and the quality of shared content still is largely anecdotic and not scientifically evidenced-based. However, SM may offer several advantages over conventional information sharing sources for CRC patients and surgeons, and create connections with mutual enrichment. Public Library of Science 2017-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5568334/ /pubmed/28832603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183031 Text en © 2017 Pellino et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Pellino, Gianluca Simillis, Constantinos Qiu, Shengyang Rasheed, Shahnawaz Mills, Sarah Warren, Oliver Kontovounisios, Christos Tekkis, Paris P. Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources |
title | Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources |
title_full | Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources |
title_fullStr | Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources |
title_full_unstemmed | Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources |
title_short | Social media and colorectal cancer: A systematic review of available resources |
title_sort | social media and colorectal cancer: a systematic review of available resources |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568334/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28832603 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183031 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pellinogianluca socialmediaandcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewofavailableresources AT simillisconstantinos socialmediaandcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewofavailableresources AT qiushengyang socialmediaandcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewofavailableresources AT rasheedshahnawaz socialmediaandcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewofavailableresources AT millssarah socialmediaandcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewofavailableresources AT warrenoliver socialmediaandcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewofavailableresources AT kontovounisioschristos socialmediaandcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewofavailableresources AT tekkisparisp socialmediaandcolorectalcancerasystematicreviewofavailableresources |