'Well that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! No excuse'. A discourse analysis of social media users' othering of non-attenders for cervical screening

HPV vaccine-related articles shared on Facebook from 2019 to 2021: Did COVID make a difference?

Objective

HPV vaccination is recommended for children beginning at age 9 to prevent several types of cancer. Many parents turn to Facebook for health information. This study describes changes in HPV vaccine-related articles shared on Facebook amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

HPV-related articles shared on Facebook (2019-2021) were collected using Buzzsumo, a social media analytics tool and analyzed using content analysis. Articles were categorized by valence, misinformation, evidence types, persuasive tactics, and framing. We quantified these data and tested for difference by article year.

Results

Of the 138 included articles, 51% had positive valence towards the vaccine and 36% had negative valence. In 2021, there was a significant increase in positive messaging (72% vs. 44% in 2019/2020; p < 0.01) and misinformation decreased from 50% in 2019 to 24% in 2021 (p = 0.04). Persuasive strategies were more common in 2019 than in later years.

Conclusion

Despite decreased engagement in 2021, more positive HPV vaccine messaging was observed, although a quarter of articles still contained misinformation. Our results can inform strategies for communicating with parents about the HPV vaccine.

Innovation

Our study is the first to analyze HPV-related articles linked on Facebook and to assess for differences during the pandemic.

Social media use in HPV-, cervical cancer-, and cervical screening-related research: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

In response to the World Health Organization's global call to eliminate cervical cancer, many countries have targets to implement human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening. Social media may offer opportunities to promote uptake of HPV screening. We aimed to describe the extent of the scientific literature regarding social media research on HPV, cervical cancer and cervical screening.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched for peer-reviewed English-language studies related to social media research and HPV, cervical cancer and cervical screening published up to November 2023. One reviewer completed the title/abstract screening and two reviewers independently reviewed full-text articles. Data extraction was carried out by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Information such as the research topic, social media platform of interest, participant characteristics, methods, analysis type, outcome measures, and key findings were collected.

RESULTS

In the 58 articles included, researchers used social media in the following ways: evaluate content, recruit participants or disseminate a survey/questionnaire, disseminate health communication content, examine the relationship between social media use and outcomes, and to conduct experiments testing the effects of social media content on outcomes. Twitter and Facebook were the most common platforms mentioned. Four articles explicitly mentioned theory.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities for research are identified such as further exploration of how newer social media platforms such as Instagram and TikTok can be used to share HPV content, examination of appropriate images for effective communication, and determining key features of social media content to promote information sharing and improve cervical screening knowledge, attitudes and behaviours.

Understanding perceptions of the public and key stakeholders toward a localised cancer screening promotion campaign

The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of members of the public and key stakeholders of a localised campaign to increase engagement with cervical cancer screening. Whilst numerous interventions have been trialled to increase engagement with cancer screening, the evidence for their effectiveness is somewhat mixed. In addition, few studies have explored the perceptions of members of the public targeted by such campaigns nor the perceptions of healthcare professionals who may be involved in delivering such campaigns in the United Kingdom. Members of the public who had potentially been exposed to the campaign in the North-East of England were approached to take part in individual interviews whilst stakeholders were invited to take part in a focus group. A total of 25 participants (13 members of the public, 12 stakeholders) took part. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using applied thematic analysis. Four themes were identified, two of which were cross-cutting (barriers to screening and factors promoting screening), with one theme identified as specific to the public interviews (knowledge of and attitudes toward awareness campaigns) and one theme specific to the focus group (keeping campaigns relevant. Awareness of the localised campaign was limited; however, when made aware, participants were mostly positive towards the approach, although mixed responses were noted in relation to financial incentives. Members of the public and stakeholders identified some common barriers to screening although differed in their perceptions of promotional factors. This study highlights the importance of multiple strategies to promote cervical screening as one size fits all approach may limit engagement.