Identifying Factors Associated With Heightened Anxiety During Breast Cancer Diagnosis Through the Analysis of Social Media Data on Reddit: Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: More than 85% of patients report heightened levels of anxiety following breast cancer diagnosis. Anxiety may become amplified during the early stages of breast cancer diagnosis when ambiguity is high. High levels of anxiety can negatively impact patients by reducing their ability to function physically, make decisions, and adhere to treatment plans, with all these elements combined serving to diminish the quality of life. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to use individual social media posts about breast cancer experiences from Reddit (r/breastcancer) to understand the factors associated with breast cancer-related anxiety as individuals move from suspecting to confirming cancer diagnosis. METHODS: We used a mixed method approach by combining natural language processing-based computational methods with descriptive analysis. Our team coded the entire corpus of 2170 unique posts from the r/breastcancer subreddit with respect to key variables, including whether the post was related to prediagnosis, diagnosis, or postdiagnosis concerns. We then used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) to rank-order the codified posts as low, neutral, or high anxiety. High-anxiety posts were then retained for deep descriptive analysis to identify key themes relative to diagnostic progression. RESULTS: After several iterations of data analysis and classification through both descriptive and computational methods, we identified a total of 448 high-anxiety posts across the 3 diagnostic categories. Our analyses revealed that individuals experience higher anxiety before a confirmed cancer diagnosis. Analysis of the high-anxiety posts revealed that the factors associated with anxiety differed depending on an individual's stage in the diagnostic process. Prediagnosis anxiety was associated with physical symptoms, cancer-related risk factors, communication, and interpreting medical information. During the diagnosis period, high anxiety was associated with physical symptoms, cancer-related risk factors, communication, and difficulty navigating the health care system. Following diagnosis, high-anxiety posts generally discussed topics related to treatment options, physical symptoms, emotional distress, family, and financial issues. CONCLUSIONS: This study has practical, theoretical, and methodological implications for cancer research. Content analysis reveals several possible drivers of anxiety at each stage (prediagnosis, during diagnosis, and postdiagnosis) and provides key insights into how clinicians can help to alleviate anxiety at all stages of diagnosis. Findings provide insights into cancer-related anxiety as a process beginning before engagement with the health care system: when an individual first notices possible cancer symptoms. Uncertainty around physical symptoms and risk factors suggests the need for increased education and improved access to trained medical staff who can assist patients with questions and concerns during the diagnostic process. Assistance in understanding technical reports, scheduling, and patient-centric clinician behavior may pinpoint opportunities for improved communication between patients and providers.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».