Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Apr 15;15(4):e0231422.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231422. eCollection 2020.

"Clicks, likes, shares and comments" a systematic review of breast cancer screening discourse in social media

Bence Döbrössy  1 , Edmond Girasek  1 , Anna Susánszky  1 , Zsuzsa Koncz  1 , Zsuzsa Győrffy  1 , Virág Katalin Bognár  1
Affiliations

"Clicks, likes, shares and comments" a systematic review of breast cancer screening discourse in social media

Bence Döbrössy et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Unsatisfactory participation rate at population based organised breast cancer screening is a long standing problem. Social media, with 3.2 billion users in 2019, is potentially an important site of breast cancer related discourse. Determining whether these platforms might be used as channels by screening providers to reach under-screened women may have considerable public health significance.

Objectives: By systematically reviewing original research studies on breast cancer related social media discourse, we had two aims: first, to assess the volume, participants and content of breast screening social media communication and second, to find out whether social media can be used by screening organisers as a channel of patient education.

Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). After searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Springer and Ebsco, 17 studies were found that met our criteria. A systematic narrative framework was used for data synthesis. Owing to the high degree of heterogeneity in social media channels, outcomes and measurement included in this study, a meta-analytic approach was not appropriate.

Results: The volume of breast cancer related social media discourse is considerable. The majority of participants are lay individuals as opposed to healthcare professionals or advocacy groups. The lay misunderstandings surrounding the harms and benefits of mammography is well mirrored in the content of social media discourse. Although there is criticism, breast cancer screening sentiment on the social media ranges from the neutral to the positive. Social media is suitable for offering peer emotional support for potential participants.

Conclusion: Dedicated breast screening websites operated by screening organisers would ensure much needed quality controlled information and also provide space for reliable question and answer forums, the sharing of personal experience and the provision of peer and professional support.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Prisma flowchart.
Fig 2
Fig 2. (Participants in the discourse) should be linked here.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Cancer Journal for Physicians. 2018;68(6):394–424. - PubMed
    1. Basu P, Ponti A, Anttila A, Ronco G, Senore C, Vale DB, et al. Status of implementation and organization of cancer screening in The European Union Member States—Summary results from the second European screening report. International Journal of Cancer. 2018;142(1):44–56. 10.1002/ijc.31043 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vale DB, Anttila A, Ponti A, Senore C, Sankaranaryanan R, Ronco G, et al. Invitation strategies and coverage in the population-based cancer screening programmes in the European Union. European Journa of Cancer Prevention. 2019;28(2):131–40. - PubMed
    1. Ronco G, Segnan N, Giordano L, Pilutti S, Senore C, Ponti A, et al. Interaction of spontaneous and organised screening for cervical cancer in Turin, Italy. European Journal of Cancer. 1997;33(8):1262–7. 10.1016/s0959-8049(97)00076-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ferroni E, Camilloni L, Jimenez B, Furnari G, Borgia P, Guasticchi G, et al. How to increase uptake in oncologic screening: a systematic review of studies comparing population-based screening programs and spontaneous access. J Preventive Medicine. 2012;55(6):587–96. - PubMed

Publication types