How TikTok Is Being Used to Help Individuals Cope With Breast Cancer: Cross-sectional Content Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Acknowledging the popularity of TikTok, how quickly medical information can spread, and how users seek support on social media, there is a clear lack of research on breast cancer conversations on TikTok. There is a paucity of information on how these videos can advocate for those impacted by breast cancer as a means to provide support and information as well as raise awareness. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this cross-sectional content analysis was to describe the content of videos from the hashtag #breastcancer on TikTok. Content related to breast cancer support and coping, cancer education, and heightening the awareness of breast cancer early detection, prevention, and treatment was evaluated. METHODS: This study included 100 of the most viewed TikTok videos related to breast cancer through June 30, 2022. Videos were excluded if they were not in the English language or relevant to the topic being studied. Content was deductively coded into categories related to video characteristics and content topics using a screener based on expert breast cancer information sheets. Univariable analyses were conducted to evaluate differences in video characteristics and content when stratified as advocating or not advocating for breast cancer (yes or no) support, education, and awareness. RESULTS: The cumulative number of views of the videos included in this study was 369,504,590. The majority (n=81, 81%) of videos were created by patients and loved ones of individuals with breast cancer, and the most commonly discussed topic was breast cancer support (n=88, 88%), followed by coping with the myriad issues surrounding breast cancer (n=79, 79%). Overall, <50% of the videos addressed important issues such as body image (n=48, 48%), surgery (n=46, 46%), medication and therapy (n=41, 41%), or the stigma associated with a breast cancer diagnosis (n=44, 44%); however, in videos that were advocacy oriented, body image (40/62, 64% vs 8/38, 21%; P<.001), stigma associated with breast cancer (33/62, 53% vs 11/38, 29%; P=.02), and breast cancer surgery (36/62, 58% vs 10/38, 26%; P=.002) were discussed significantly more often than in videos that did not specifically advocate for breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The use of videos to display health journeys can facilitate engagement by patients, family members, and loved ones interested in information about challenging conditions. Collectively, these findings highlight the level of peer-to-peer involvement on TikTok and may provide insights for designing breast cancer educational campaigns.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».