Cancer Misinformation and Harmful Information on Facebook and Other Social Media: A Brief Report

Abstract

There are little data on the quality of cancer treatment information available on social media. Here, we quantify the accuracy of cancer treatment information on social media and its potential for harm. Two cancer experts reviewed 50 of the most popular social media articles on each of the 4 most common cancers. The proportion of misinformation and potential for harm were reported for all 200 articles, and their association with the number of social media engagements using a 2-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Of 200 total articles, 32.5% (n = 65) contained misinformation and 30.5% (n = 61) contained harmful information. Among articles containing misinformation, 76.9% (50 of 65) contained harmful information. The median number of engagements for articles with misinformation was greater than factual articles (median [IQR] = 2300 [1200–4700] vs 1600 [819–4700], P = .05). The median number of engagements for articles with harmful information was statistically significantly greater than safe articles (median [IQR] = 2300 [1400–4700] vs 1500 [810–4700], P = .007).

Nutrition Practices among Adult Cancer Survivors Living on the Island of Ireland: A Cross-Sectional Study

“…These platforms can be favorable in some regards by providing an avenue for patient engagement and empowerment, increasing informational support and relaying opportunities for clinical and research study participation [46]. Conversely, it can spread misinformation, overwhelm with information and expose survivors to financial exploitation [22]. This can lead to the information void being filled by unqualified and unreliable sources and alternative health providers promoting complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) [16].…”

“…In consequence, insufficient professional advice coupled with a desire for information may lead some cancer survivors to seek out information about diet themselves. When searching in popular media or online, cancer survivors encounter a wealth of information, not all of which is reliable or accurate [22]. There is an abundance of media misreporting of the dietary factors that are linked to cancer risk that could be misleading, particularly if they believe the sources to be trustworthy [23].…”

Timing and Motivations for Alternative Cancer Therapy With Insights From a Crowdfunding Platform: Cross-sectional Mixed Methods Study

“…In some campaigns the desire for a more “natural” therapy was closely tied to an incorrect understanding of cancer biology, often surrounding the immune system’s capacity to fight cancer. A total of 132 (20.3%) campaigns cited pseudoscientific information as the reason for pursuing ACT, underscoring the impact of medical misinformation, often from online sources, in persuading individuals to use cancer treatments that are not evidence-based [ 23 ]. Frequently, seeking natural care was conveyed as a mark of faith.…”

Are beliefs about the importance of genetics for cancer prevention and early detection associated with high risk cancer genetic testing in the U.S. Population?

“…It is possible that the general public may understand that ‘cancer prevention’ generally comprises approaches to reduce cancer risk rather than completely eliminating risk of cancer occurrence. The public’s views and opinions may be shaped by how information about cancer prevention and early detection is presented in various information sources, including the mainstream media, Web and social media ( Johnson et al, 2021 ). Trustworthy sources such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute do not appear to distinguish between the meaning of the terms ‘cancer prevention’ and ‘early detection’ in their public-facing information on cancer genetic testing; and there is limited data on laypersons’ use of these information sources.…”