在Meta社交媒体平台上广告替代癌症治疗和方法:内容分析。

IF 3.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JMIR infodemiology Pub Date : 2023-05-31 DOI:10.2196/43548
Marco Zenone, Jeremy Snyder, Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon, Timothy Caulfield, May van Schalkwyk, Nason Maani
{"title":"在Meta社交媒体平台上广告替代癌症治疗和方法:内容分析。","authors":"Marco Zenone,&nbsp;Jeremy Snyder,&nbsp;Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon,&nbsp;Timothy Caulfield,&nbsp;May van Schalkwyk,&nbsp;Nason Maani","doi":"10.2196/43548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73554,"journal":{"name":"JMIR infodemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10267786/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Marco Zenone,&nbsp;Jeremy Snyder,&nbsp;Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon,&nbsp;Timothy Caulfield,&nbsp;May van Schalkwyk,&nbsp;Nason Maani\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/43548\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR infodemiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10267786/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR infodemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/43548\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR infodemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/43548","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与接受常规治疗的癌症患者相比,替代癌症治疗与更大的死亡风险相关。坊间证据表明,癌症患者在社交媒体上看到了推广替代癌症治疗的付费广告,但这种广告的范围和性质尚不清楚。这种情况表明,迫切需要调查社交媒体上的替代癌症治疗广告。目的:本研究旨在系统分析知名癌症替代治疗从业者在Meta平台上的广告活动,包括Facebook、Instagram、Messenger和Audience Network。我们特别试图确定(1)替代癌症治疗的付费广告是否出现在Meta社交媒体平台上,(2)替代癌症提供者接触和吸引潜在患者的策略和信息,以及(3)如何描述替代治疗的疗效。方法:在2021年12月6日至2021年12月12日期间,我们使用Meta广告库收集来自替代癌症诊所的活跃广告。收集的信息包括识别号、URL、激活/不激活状态、启动/运行日期、广告商页面名称以及广告的截图(图像)或录音(视频)。然后,我们进行了内容分析,以确定替代癌症提供者如何传达其服务声称的好处,并评估他们如何描述替代癌症治疗效果。结果:我们在Meta (Facebook、Instagram或Messenger)上发现了来自11家替代癌症诊所的310个付费广告,这些广告营销替代治疗方法、护理和干预措施。替代癌症提供者通过八种策略吸引潜在患者:(1)作为合法医疗提供者的广告代理(n=289, 93.2%);(2)吸引治疗方案有限的人(n=203, 65.5%);(3)客户评价(n=168, 54.2%);(4)推广整体方法(n=121, 39%);(5)宣传保健信息(n=81, 26.1%);(6)与科学研究相关的修辞(n=72, 23.2%);(7)与最新技术有关的修辞(n= 63,20.3%);(8)集中治疗癌症的起源和原因(n=43, 13.9%)。总体而言,25.8% (n=80)的广告包括直接声明提供者的治疗可以治愈癌症或延长生命。结论:我们的结果提供了证据,证明替代癌症提供者正在使用Meta广告产品推销科学上不支持的癌症治疗。广告经常提到“替代”和“自然”治疗癌症的方法。模仿循证医疗提供者的图像和文本内容给人的印象是,所提供的治疗是癌症的有效医疗选择。广告通过分享过去声称治愈或延长生命的患者的证词,利用了晚期和预后不良患者的希望。我们建议Meta在给予广告许可之前,为医疗相关的广告商引入一个强制性的、由人工主导的授权流程,而不是依赖于人工智能。进一步的研究应侧重于社交媒体平台广告产品与公共健康之间的利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis.

Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis.

Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis.

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 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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