A crosssectional analysis of Facebook comments to study public perception of a new diagnostic test called the Cytosponge

Abstract

Social media provides a useful platform for informal discussions about healthcare. Acceptability is key to the uptake of diagnostic devices and this can be difficult to gauge from questionnaires and qualitative studies. The aim of this study is to investigate whether Facebook could be used to gauge public perception toward uptake of a new diagnostic test for Barrett's esophagus called the Cytosponge. We retrospectively reviewed Facebook comments relating to a video on the Cytosponge. We categorized comments into: (1) Positive, (2) Negative, (3) Unknown and (4) Questions. Recurring themes that arose were compared to a qualitative study on the Cytosponge. The video received 22.5 million views and 2837 comments within four months. Of these, 525 comments were positive, 215 were unknown, 179 were negative, 71 were questions, and 1847 were 'Tagged' comments. Among positive comments, recurrent themes were that it was innovative, could lead to early cancer-detection, and more favorable than endoscopy. Among negative comments, a recurring theme was concern about the risk of gagging and vomiting. Among 'questions', a recurring theme was related to the risk of Cytosponge detachment. We compared our analysis to a published qualitative study and found similar themes arose across both studies. Facebook provides a rich source of qualitative data, which could be used to augment studies to gauge public perception toward a new diagnostic test.

Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review

“…(2019), UK 30 Semistructured interviews Secondary care Referral for dyspepsia 4 TNE, EGD Experienced Yes Expectations and experiences Good Tan et al. (2019), UK 31 Cross-sectional analysis Facebook community NR NR Cytosponge-TFF3 Hypothetical Yes Public perspective and barriers towards uptake Medium Mixed methods Peters et al. A (2020), The Netherlands 34 DCE Population registry sample 50–75 y 375 2 unlabelled hypothetical tests Hypothetical Yes Screening preferences, intended participation No methodological deficiencies Peters et al.…”

“…The included studies were published between 2004 and 2020 and were performed in the United States (US) ( n = 9), 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 United Kingdom (UK) ( n = 5), 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 the Netherlands ( n = 3), 32 , 33 , 34 Israel ( n = 1), 35 and Japan ( n = 1). 36 Study participants experienced a real-life screening procedure ( n = 14), 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 32 , 35 , 36 or completed a questionnaire or interview on their intent to participate in OAC screening ( n = 5).…”

A Cross-sectional Analysis of Facebook Comments to Study Public Perception of the Mass Drug Administration Program in the Philippines

“…The tool was licensed under a Creative Commons 4.0 International License and University of Texas Library. 17 Gathering and Analysis of Facebook Comments We utilized the data gathering procedure on cross-sectional analysis of Facebook comments to study public perception by Tan et al 18 with modification. We retrospectively reviewed all comments of the netizens in response to the news story.…”

“…Therefore, the ethical approval was not required for this study. 18 We employed a passive analysis of data, which involved the study of information patterns as reflected on the Facebook comments. 18,19 We first extracted Facebook comments and group them into pre-set categories using MAXQDA Analytics Pro (VERBI GmbH; Berlin, Germany).…”

“…18 We employed a passive analysis of data, which involved the study of information patterns as reflected on the Facebook comments. 18,19 We first extracted Facebook comments and group them into pre-set categories using MAXQDA Analytics Pro (VERBI GmbH; Berlin, Germany). The rational themes that emerged include (1) positive comments, (2) negative comments, (3) questions, (4) unsolicited suggestions, (5) tagged comments, and (6) unknown.…”