Over 70,000 adolescent and young adults aged 15 to 39 years (AYA) are diagnosed with cancer each year in the US. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has identified AYA cancer patients as a unique population. The most common cancers in this age group include tumors typically seen in pediatric patients such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and brain tumors, as well as cancers more typically seen in adult patients such as breast cancer and melanoma. In addition, some cancers have their highest incidence in AYA patients, such as Hodgkin Lymphoma, testicular cancer and bone tumors. AYA patients face additional unique issues due to their age, not just questions about treatment choices due to lack of data, but also questions about fertility, relationships, loss of autonomy, and interruptions in school/work with potentially significant financial complications. This age group also has very high rates of social media usage with up to 90% of adults aged 18 to 29 using social networking sites. In this review, we will describe the use of social media in AYAs with cancer and highlight some of the online resources for AYAs.

BackgroundHealth researchers are increasingly using social media in a professional capacity, and the applications of social media for health researchers are vast. However, there is currently no published evidence synthesis of the ways in which health researchers use social media professionally, and uncertainty remains as to how best to harness its potential.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to explore how social media is used by health researchers professionally, as reported in the literature.MethodsThe scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O’Malley and Levac et al was used. Comprehensive searches based on the concepts of health research and social media were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science databases, with no limitations applied. Articles were screened at the title and abstract level and at full text by two reviewers. One reviewer extracted data that were analyzed descriptively to map the available evidence.ResultsA total of 8359 articles were screened at the title and abstract level, of which 719 were also assessed at full text for eligibility. The 414 articles identified for inclusion were published in 278 different journals. Studies originated from 31 different countries, with the most prevalent being the United States (52.7% [218/414]). The health discipline of the first authors varied, with medicine (33.3% [138/414]) being the most common. A third of the articles covered health generally, with 61 health-specific topics. Papers used a range of social media platforms (mean 1.33 [SD 0.7]). A quarter of the articles screened reported on social media use for participant recruitment (25.1% [104/414]), followed by practical ways to use social media (15.5% [64/414]), and use of social media for content analysis research (13.3% [55/414]). Articles were categorized as celebratory (ie, opportunities for engagement, 72.2% [299/414]), contingent (ie, opportunities and possible limitations, 22.7% [94/414]) and concerned (ie, potentially harmful, 5.1% [21/414]).ConclusionsHealth researchers are increasingly publishing on their use of social media for a range of professional purposes. Although most of the sentiment around the use of social media in health research was celebratory, the uses of social media varied widely. Future research is needed to support health researchers to optimize their social media use.

It is without question that the Internet has democratized access to medical information, with estimates that 70% of the American population use it as a resource, particularly for cancer-related information. Such unfettered access to information has led to an increase in health misinformation. Fortunately, the data indicate that health care professionals remain among the most trusted information resources. Therefore, understanding how the Internet has changed engagement with health information and facilitated the spread of misinformation is an important task and challenge for cancer clinicians. In this review, we perform a meta-synthesis of qualitative data and point toward empirical evidence that characterizes misinformation in medicine, specifically in oncology. We present this as a call to action for all clinicians to become more active in ongoing efforts to combat misinformation in oncology.

No abstract