Instagram and prostate cancer: using validated instruments to assess the quality of information on social media

Effectiveness of the Medical Chatbot PROSCA to Inform Patients About Prostate Cancer: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and objective

Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered conversational agents are increasingly finding application in health care, as these can provide patient education at any time. However, their effectiveness in medical settings remains largely unexplored. This study aimed to assess the impact of the chatbot "PROState cancer Conversational Agent" (PROSCA), which was trained to provide validated support from diagnostic tests to treatment options for men facing prostate cancer (PC) diagnosis.

Methods

The chatbot PROSCA, developed by urologists at Heidelberg University Hospital and SAP SE, was evaluated through a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Patients were assigned to either the chatbot group, receiving additional access to PROSCA alongside standard information by urologists, or the control group (1:1), receiving standard information. A total of 112 men were included, of whom 103 gave feedback at study completion.

Key findings and limitations

Over time, patients' information needs decreased significantly more in the chatbot group than in the control group (p = 0.035). In the chatbot group, 43/54 men (79.6%) used PROSCA, and all of them found it easy to use. Of the men, 71.4% agreed that the chatbot improved their informedness about PC and 90.7% would like to use PROSCA again. Limitations are study sample size, single-center design, and specific clinical application.

Conclusions and clinical implications

With the introduction of the PROSCA chatbot, we created and evaluated an innovative, evidence-based AI health information tool as an additional source of information for PC. Our RCT results showed significant benefits of the chatbot in reducing patients' information needs and enhancing their understanding of PC. This easy-to-use AI tool provides accurate, timely, and accessible support, demonstrating its value in the PC diagnosis process. Future steps include further customization of the chatbot's responses and integration with the existing health care systems to maximize its impact on patient outcomes.

Patient summary

This study evaluated an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot-PROSCA, a digital tool designed to support men facing prostate cancer diagnosis by providing validated information from diagnosis to treatment. Results showed that patients who used the chatbot as an additional tool felt better informed than those who received standard information from urologists. The majority of users appreciated the ease of use of the chatbot and expressed a desire to use it again; this suggests that PROSCA could be a valuable resource to improve patient understanding in prostate cancer diagnosis.

Comparative analysis of artificial intelligence chatbot recommendations for urolithiasis management: A study of EAU guideline compliance

OBJECTIVES

Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are increasingly being utilized by both patients and physicians for accessing medical information. This study focused on the urolithiasis section (pertaining to kidney and ureteral stones) of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guideline, a key reference for urologists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We directed inquiries to four distinct AI chatbots to assess their responses in relation to guideline adherence. A total of 115 recommendations were transformed into questions, and responses were evaluated by two urologists with a minimum of 5 years of experience using a 5-point Likert scale (1 - False, 2 - Inadequate, 3 - Sufficient, 4 - Correct, and 5 - Very correct).

RESULTS

The mean scores for Perplexity and ChatGPT 4.0 were 4.68 (SD: 0.80) and 4.80 (SD: 0.47), respectively, both significantly differed the scores of Bing and Bard (Bing vs. Perplexity, P<0.001; Bard vs. Perplexity, P<0.001; Bing vs. ChatGPT, P<0.001; Bard vs. ChatGPT, P<0.001). Bing had a mean score of 4.21 (SD: 0.96), while Bard scored 3.56 (SD: 1.14), with a significant difference (Bing vs. Bard, P<0.001). Bard exhibited the lowest score among all chatbots. Analysis of references revealed that Perplexity and Bing cited the guideline most frequently (47.3% and 30%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that ChatGPT 4.0 and, notably, Perplexity align well with EAU guideline recommendations. These continuously evolving applications may play a crucial role in delivering information to physicians in the future, especially for urolithiasis.

ChatGPT can help guide and empower patients after prostate cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Patients often face uncertainty about what they should know after prostate cancer diagnosis. Web-based information is common but is at risk of being of poor quality or readability.

SUBJECTS/METHODS

We used ChatGPT, a freely available Artificial intelligence (AI) platform, to generate enquiries about prostate cancer that a newly diagnosed patient might ask and compared to Google search trends. Then, we evaluated ChatGPT responses to these questions for clinical appropriateness and quality using standardised tools.

RESULTS

ChatGPT generates broad and representative questions, and provides understandable, clinically sound advice.

CONCLUSIONS

AI can guide and empower patients after prostate cancer diagnosis through education. However, the limitations of the ChatGPT language-model must not be ignored and require further evaluation and optimisation in the healthcare field.

Cancer: A model topic for misinformation researchers

Although cancer might seem like a niche subject, we argue that it is a model topic for misinformation researchers, and an ideal area of application given its importance for society. We first discuss the prevalence of cancer misinformation online and how it has the potential to cause harm. We next examine the financial incentives for those who profit from disinformation dissemination, how people with cancer are a uniquely vulnerable population, and why trust in science and medical professionals is particularly relevant to this topic. We finally discuss how belief in cancer misinformation has clear objective consequences and can be measured with treatment adherence and health outcomes such as mortality. In sum, cancer misinformation could assist the characterization of misinformation beliefs and be used to develop tools to combat misinformation in general.

The Reel Health Care Professionals of Instagram: A Systematic Review

Social media and health research have covered the benefits for the public and patients as users. Specifically, this has focused on searching for health information, connecting with others experiencing similar health issues, and communicating with their health professionals. Recently, there has been a shift in research to focus on health care professionals as users as they participate in professional development, improve communication with patients, and contribute to health research and service. However, such research has predominantly focused on text-based platforms, namely Facebook and Twitter. The scope of this article is a systematic review of publications on health care professionals' use of the image-based platform Instagram, according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. This study, drawing from 51 articles, shows how health care professionals use Instagram, and reveals that these professionals utilize the platform to address health concerns that may not necessarily align with their specific expertise. Images were the common format of posts created by health care professionals, with six content types identified: (a) educational, (b) promotional, (c) patient experience, (d) personal, (e) emotion based, and (f) other. Three measures of post engagement were used by researchers, including (a) likes and comments, (b) use of hashtags, and (c) number of followers. This study also identified the dangers of misleading users, including (a) lack of credentials reported, (b) edited images, (c) quality of content, and (d) patient and client confidentiality issues. In conclusion, insights into the advantages of health care professionals' use of Instagram and ways in which they can maximize its use to reach and engage with their target audience are provided.

How Well Do Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Respond to the Top Search Queries About Urological Malignancies?

Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are becoming a popular source of information but there are limited data on the quality of information on urological malignancies that they provide. Our objective was to characterize the quality of information and detect misinformation about prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancers from four AI chatbots: ChatGPT, Perplexity, Chat Sonic, and Microsoft Bing AI. We used the top five search queries related to prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular cancers according to Google Trends from January 2021 to January 2023 and input them into the AI chatbots. Responses were evaluated for quality, understandability, actionability, misinformation, and readability using published instruments. AI chatbot responses had moderate to high information quality (median DISCERN score 4 out of 5, range 2-5) and lacked misinformation. Understandability was moderate (median Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Printable Materials [PEMAT-P] understandability 66.7%, range 44.4-90.9%) and actionability was moderate to poor (median PEMAT-P actionability 40%, range 0-40%The responses were written at a fairly difficult reading level. AI chatbots produce information that is generally accurate and of moderate to high quality in response to the top urological malignancy-related search queries, but the responses lack clear, actionable instructions and exceed the reading level recommended for consumer health information. PATIENT SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence chatbots produce information that is generally accurate and of moderately high quality in response to popular Google searches about urological cancers. However, their responses are fairly difficult to read, are moderately hard to understand, and lack clear instructions for users to act on.

Evaluating the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions related to benign prostate hyperplasia and prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT's answers to frequently asked questions about benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer.

METHODS

Frequently asked questions on the websites of urology associations, hospitals, and social media about prostate cancer and BPH were evaluated. Also, strong recommendation-level data were noted in the recommendations tables of the European Urology Association (EAU) 2022 Guidelines on Prostate Cancer and Management of Non-neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms sections. All questions were asked in order in ChatGPT Mar 23 Version. All answers were evaluated separately by two specialist urologists and scored between 1-4.

RESULTS

Forty questions about BPH and 86 questions about prostate cancer were included in the study. The answers to all BPH-related questions resulted in 90.0% completely correct. This rate for questions about prostate cancer was 94.2%. The completely correct rate in the questions prepared according to the strong recommendations of the EAU guideline was 77.8% for BPH and 76.2% for prostate cancer. The similarity rates of the answers to the repeated questions were 90.0% and 93% for questions related to BPH and prostate cancer, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ChatGPT has given satisfactory answers to questions about BPH and prostate cancer. Although it has limitations, it can be predicted that it will take an important place in the health sector in the future, as it is a constantly evolving platform. ChatGPT was able to provide helpful information about BPH and prostate cancer, although it is not perfect. It is constantly getting better, and may become an important resource in the healthcare field in the future.

Advertising Alternative Cancer Treatments and Approaches on Meta Social Media Platforms: Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing conventional treatments. Anecdotal evidence suggests cancer patients view paid advertisements promoting alternative cancer treatment on social media, but the extent and nature of this advertising remain unknown. This context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically analyze the advertising activities of prominent alternative cancer treatment practitioners on Meta platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Messenger, and Audience Network. We specifically sought to determine (1) whether paid advertising for alternative cancer treatment occurs on Meta social media platforms, (2) the strategies and messages of alternative cancer providers to reach and appeal to prospective patients, and (3) how the efficacy of alternative treatments is portrayed.

METHODS

Between December 6, 2021, and December 12, 2021, we collected active advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ad Library. The information collected included identification number, URL, active/inactive status, dates launched/ran, advertiser page name, and a screenshot (image) or recording (video) of the advertisement. We then conducted a content analysis to determine how alternative cancer providers communicate the claimed benefits of their services and evaluated how they portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

We identified 310 paid advertisements from 11 alternative cancer clinics on Meta (Facebook, Instagram, or Messenger) marketing alternative treatment approaches, care, and interventions. Alternative cancer providers appealed to prospective patients through eight strategies: (1) advertiser representation as a legitimate medical provider (n=289, 93.2%); (2) appealing to persons with limited treatments options (n=203, 65.5%); (3) client testimonials (n=168, 54.2%); (4) promoting holistic approaches (n=121, 39%); (5) promoting messages of care (n=81, 26.1%); (6) rhetoric related to science and research (n=72, 23.2%); (7) rhetoric pertaining to the latest technology (n=63, 20.3%); and (8) focusing treatment on cancer origins and cause (n=43, 13.9%). Overall, 25.8% (n=80) of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide evidence alternative cancer providers are using Meta advertising products to market scientifically unsupported cancer treatments. Advertisements regularly referenced "alternative" and "natural" treatment approaches to cancer. Imagery and text content that emulated evidence-based medical providers created the impression that the offered treatments were effective medical options for cancer. Advertisements exploited the hope of patients with terminal and poor prognoses by sharing testimonials of past patients who allegedly were cured or had their lives prolonged. We recommend that Meta introduce a mandatory, human-led authorization process that is not reliant upon artificial intelligence for medical-related advertisers before giving advertising permissions. Further research should focus on the conflict of interest between social media platforms advertising products and public health.

An artificial intelligence-based chatbot for prostate cancer education: Design and patient evaluation study

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in healthcare. AI-based chatbots can act as automated conversational agents, capable of promoting health and providing education at any time. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a user-friendly medical chatbot (prostate cancer communication assistant (PROSCA)) for provisioning patient information about early detection of prostate cancer (PC).

Methods

The chatbot was developed to provide information on prostate diseases, diagnostic tests for PC detection, stages, and treatment options. Ten men aged 49 to 81 years with suspicion of PC were enrolled in this study. Nine of ten patients used the chatbot during the evaluation period and filled out the questionnaires on usage and usability, perceived benefits, and potential for improvement.

Results

The chatbot was straightforward to use, with 78% of users not needing any assistance during usage. In total, 89% of the chatbot users in the study experienced a clear to moderate increase in knowledge about PC through the chatbot. All study participants who tested the chatbot would like to re-use a medical chatbot in the future and support the use of chatbots in the clinical routine.

Conclusions

Through the introduction of the chatbot PROSCA, we created and evaluated an innovative evidence-based health information tool in the field of PC, allowing targeted support for doctor-patient communication and offering great potential in raising awareness, patient education, and support. Our study revealed that a medical chatbot in the field of early PC detection is readily accepted and benefits patients as an additional informative tool.

Does the urologist keep a central place in the medical information delivered to patients?

INTRODUCTION

Although urologists play an essential role in informing patients, with the ever-increasing use of modern media, a wealth of information sources is now available. The aim of this study was to identify the different sources of information available to urology patients, assess the scale of use of the internet and social networks in this group, and establish the profile of patients for whom a high level of information is crucial.

MATERIALS

A questionnaire was given to 500 patients consulting the urology department of a university hospital.

RESULTS

Out of the 500 questionnaires, 372 were analysable; the average age of respondents was 62.9years; 73% were men; 66.9% said they used the internet; 57% had received an explanatory document such as an French Urology Association information leaflet, 32.5% had received information from the paramedical team, 28.2% from their regular doctor, 28.2% from health-related websites and 5.9% from the website developed by the French Urology Association. Although 80.3% of patients thought that information received from the urologist was satisfactory, 53.2% of patients would like to receive more information. We did not identify any factors allowing us to determine the typical profile of patients seeking more information.

CONCLUSION

Urologists seem to retain their central role in informing patients, but almost half of patients were still seeking additional information after their urology consultation. The increasing use of the internet should encourage urologists to use these new media resources to optimise the information supplied to patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4