How to Optimize Health Messages About Cancer on Facebook: Mixed-Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incidence rate of cancer is increasing worldwide, with longer life expectancy being one of the main causes. Yet, between 30% and 50% of cancer cases are preventable, and early detection contributes to a better prognosis. This makes health communication strategies essential. Facebook, the world's most used social networking site in 2017 and 2018, can be a useful tool for disseminating powerful messages on health promotion, prevention, and early detection. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to (1) offer ways of optimizing health messages about cancer on Facebook, focusing on topics, such as risk factors, prevention, treatment, early diagnosis, and cure, and (2) investigate which aspects of these messages generate greater engagement. METHODS: To verify what generates greater engagement in topics related to cancer on Facebook, we analyzed 16 Brazilian pages with the main theme of cancer. We performed a manual analysis of texts, content, and engagement rates. Finally, we developed a software program to operationalize the analysis of Facebook posts. The tool we devised aims to automate the analysis of any Facebook page with cancer as the main theme. RESULTS: We analyzed 712 posts over a 1-month period. We divided the posts into the following 8 categories: "Testimonies or real-life stories," "Solidarity," "Anniversaries," "Science and health," "Events," "Institutional," "Risk factors," and "Beauty." The pages were also organized into groups according to the type of profile to which they belonged (ie, hospitals or foundations, informative, nongovernmental organizations, and personal pages).The results showed that the categories generating greater engagement in Brazil were not those with the highest percentage of cancer-related content. For instance, in the "Informative" group the "Testimonies or real-life stories" category generated an engagement of 79.5%. However, only 9.5% (25/261) of the content within the relevant time period dealt with such topics. Another example concerns the category "Science and health." Despite being the one with the highest number of posts (129/261, 49.4%), it scored 5th in terms of engagement. This investigation served as the basis for the development of a tool designed to automate the analysis of Facebook pages. The list of categories and keywords generated by this analysis was employed to feed the system, which was then able to categorize posts appearing on a Facebook page. We tested the system on 163 posts and only 34 were classified incorrectly, which amounts to a 20.8% error rate (79.2% accuracy). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis we conducted by categorizing posts and calculating engagement rates shows that the potential of Facebook pages is often underutilized. This occurs because the categories that generate the greatest engagement are often not those most frequently used. The software developed in this research may help administrators of cancer-related pages analyze their posts more easily and increase public interest as a result.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".