Social Media as a Platform for Cancer Care Decision-Making Among Women: Internet Survey-Based Study on Trust, Engagement, and Preferences.

IF 3.3 Q2 ONCOLOGY
JMIR Cancer Pub Date : 2025-03-05 DOI:10.2196/64724
Anna Rose Johnson, Grace Anne Longfellow, Clara N Lee, Benjamin Ormseth, Gary B Skolnick, Mary C Politi, Yonaira M Rivera, Terence Myckatyn
{"title":"Social Media as a Platform for Cancer Care Decision-Making Among Women: Internet Survey-Based Study on Trust, Engagement, and Preferences.","authors":"Anna Rose Johnson, Grace Anne Longfellow, Clara N Lee, Benjamin Ormseth, Gary B Skolnick, Mary C Politi, Yonaira M Rivera, Terence Myckatyn","doi":"10.2196/64724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Decision aids improve patient and clinician decision-making but are underused and often restricted to clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Given limited studies analyzing the feasibility of disseminating decision aids through social media, this study aimed to evaluate the acceptability, trust, and engagement of women with social media as a tool to deliver online decision aids for cancer treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To prepare for potential dissemination of a breast cancer decision aid via social media, a cross-sectional survey in February 2023 was conducted via Prime Panels, an online market research platform, of women aged 35-75 years in the United States. Demographics, health, cancer information-seeking behaviors, social media use, trust in social media for health information, as well as the likelihood of viewing cancer-related health information and clicking on decision aids through social media, were assessed. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, correlations, and multivariable ordinal regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 607 respondents, 397 (65.4%) had searched for cancer information, with 185 (46.6%) using the internet as their primary source. Facebook (Meta) was the most popular platform (511/607, 84.2%). Trust in social media for health information was higher among Black (14/72, 19.4%) and Asian respondents (7/27, 25.9%) than among White respondents (49/480, 10.2%; P=.003). Younger respondents aged 35-39 years (17/82, 20.7%) showed higher trust than those aged 70-79 years (12/70, 17.1%; P<.001). Trust in social media for health information was linked to a higher likelihood of viewing cancer information and accessing a decision aid online (P<.001). Participants who rated social media as \"Trustworthy\" (n=73) were more likely to view cancer information (61/73, 83.6%) and click on decision aids (61/73, 83.6%) than those who found it \"Untrustworthy\" (n=277; view: 133/277, 48.0%; click: 125/277, 45.1%). Engagement with social media positively correlated with viewing online cancer information (Spearman ρ=0.20, P<.001) and willingness to use decision aids (ρ=0.21, P<.001). Multivariable ordinal regression analyses confirmed that perception of social media's trustworthiness is a significant predictor of engagement with decision aids (untrustworthy vs trustworthy β=-1.826, P<.001; neutral vs trustworthy β=-0.926, P=.007) and of viewing cancer information (untrustworthy vs trustworthy β=-1.680, P<.001, neutral vs trustworthy β=-0.581, P=.098), while age and employment status were not significant predictors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This exploratory study suggests that social media platforms may increase access to health information and decision aids. No significant differences were observed between demographic variables and the use or trust in social media for health information. However, trust in social media emerged as a mediating factor between demographics and engagement with cancer information online. Before disseminating decision aids on social media, groups should identify existing trust and engagement patterns with different platforms within their target demographic.</p>","PeriodicalId":45538,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Cancer","volume":"11 ","pages":"e64724"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11923483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/64724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Decision aids improve patient and clinician decision-making but are underused and often restricted to clinical settings.

Objective: Given limited studies analyzing the feasibility of disseminating decision aids through social media, this study aimed to evaluate the acceptability, trust, and engagement of women with social media as a tool to deliver online decision aids for cancer treatment.

Methods: To prepare for potential dissemination of a breast cancer decision aid via social media, a cross-sectional survey in February 2023 was conducted via Prime Panels, an online market research platform, of women aged 35-75 years in the United States. Demographics, health, cancer information-seeking behaviors, social media use, trust in social media for health information, as well as the likelihood of viewing cancer-related health information and clicking on decision aids through social media, were assessed. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, correlations, and multivariable ordinal regression.

Results: Of 607 respondents, 397 (65.4%) had searched for cancer information, with 185 (46.6%) using the internet as their primary source. Facebook (Meta) was the most popular platform (511/607, 84.2%). Trust in social media for health information was higher among Black (14/72, 19.4%) and Asian respondents (7/27, 25.9%) than among White respondents (49/480, 10.2%; P=.003). Younger respondents aged 35-39 years (17/82, 20.7%) showed higher trust than those aged 70-79 years (12/70, 17.1%; P<.001). Trust in social media for health information was linked to a higher likelihood of viewing cancer information and accessing a decision aid online (P<.001). Participants who rated social media as "Trustworthy" (n=73) were more likely to view cancer information (61/73, 83.6%) and click on decision aids (61/73, 83.6%) than those who found it "Untrustworthy" (n=277; view: 133/277, 48.0%; click: 125/277, 45.1%). Engagement with social media positively correlated with viewing online cancer information (Spearman ρ=0.20, P<.001) and willingness to use decision aids (ρ=0.21, P<.001). Multivariable ordinal regression analyses confirmed that perception of social media's trustworthiness is a significant predictor of engagement with decision aids (untrustworthy vs trustworthy β=-1.826, P<.001; neutral vs trustworthy β=-0.926, P=.007) and of viewing cancer information (untrustworthy vs trustworthy β=-1.680, P<.001, neutral vs trustworthy β=-0.581, P=.098), while age and employment status were not significant predictors.

Conclusions: This exploratory study suggests that social media platforms may increase access to health information and decision aids. No significant differences were observed between demographic variables and the use or trust in social media for health information. However, trust in social media emerged as a mediating factor between demographics and engagement with cancer information online. Before disseminating decision aids on social media, groups should identify existing trust and engagement patterns with different platforms within their target demographic.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Cancer
JMIR Cancer ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信