RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Objectives. To understand whether and how crowdfunding campaigns are a source of COVID-19-related misinformation.Methods. We searched the GoFundMe crowdfunding platform using 172 terms associated with medical misinformation about COVID-19 prophylaxes and treatments. We screened resulting campaigns for those making statements about the ability of these searched-for or related terms to prevent or treat COVID-19.Results. There were 208 campaigns worldwide that requested $21 475 568, raised $324 305 from 4367 donors, and were shared 24 158 times. The most discussed interventions were dietary supplements and purported immune system boosters (n = 231), followed by other forms of complementary and alternative medicine (n = 24), and unproven medical interventions (n = 15). Most (82.2%) of the campaigns made definitive efficacy claims.Conclusions. Campaigners focused their efforts on dietary supplements and immune system boosters. Campaigns for purported COVID-19 treatments are particularly concerning, but purported prophylaxes could also distract from known effective preventative approaches. GoFundMe should join other online and social media platforms to actively restrict campaigns that spread misinformation about COVID-19 or seek to better inform campaigners about evidence-based prophylaxes and treatments.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Comunicação , Crowdsourcing/economia , Financiamento da Assistência à Saúde , Mídias Sociais , Terapias Complementares , Suplementos Nutricionais , HumanosRESUMO
Lyme disease remains a contested illness in Canada, thereby making the diagnostic and treatment journeys difficult for some people. One outcome of this is that increasing numbers of people are turning to medical crowdfunding to support access to alternative therapies, non-local health care providers and assist with managing the costs of everyday life. In this analysis, we qualitatively explore the narratives shared in Canadians' crowdfunding campaigns to support Lyme disease treatment or diagnosis to identify whether or not any common elements shared in these narratives exist, and if so, what they are. We identified 238 campaigns for inclusion from three prominent crowdfunding platforms. Thematic analysis of the campaign narratives shows four consistent themes shared in these campaigns: what is lost (e.g. bodily ability), what is missing (e.g. local care options), what is sought (e.g. funds to cover treatment abroad) and what is hoped for (e.g. return to wellbeing). These themes demonstrate the highly personal and emotional nature of medical crowdfunding, particularly in the context of a contested illness that may lead some to question the legitimacy of one's financial need. This analysis contributes valuable new insights to the nascent scholarship on medical crowdfunding, and particularly to our understanding of how people communicate about their health and bodily needs on this public platform. It also identifies important directions for future research, including the potential for crowdfunding narratives to be used for advocacy.
Assuntos
Crowdsourcing , Doença de Lyme , Turismo Médico , Canadá , Financiamento da Assistência à Saúde , Humanos , Doença de Lyme/terapiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly being integrated into conventional medical care for cancer, used to counter the side effects of conventional cancer treatment, and offered as an alternative to conventional cancer care. Our aim is to gain a broader understanding of trends in CAM interventions for cancer and crowdfunding campaigns for these interventions. METHODS: GoFundMe campaigns fundraising for CAM were retrieved through a database of crowdfunding campaign data. Search terms were drawn from two National Institutes of Health lists of CAM cancer interventions and a previous study. Campaigns were excluded that did not match these or related search terms or were initiated outside of June 4th, 2018 to June 4th, 2019. RESULTS: 1,396 campaigns were identified from the US (n = 1,037, 73.9%), Canada (n = 165, 11.8%), and the UK (n = 107, 7.7%). Most common cancer types were breast (n = 344, 24.6%), colorectal (n = 131, 9.4%), and brain (n = 98, 7.0%). CAM interventions sought included supplements (n = 422, 30.2%), better nutrition (n = 293, 21.0%), high dose vitamin C (n = 276, 19.8%), naturopathy (n = 226, 16.2%), and cannabis products (n = 211, 15.1%). Mexico (n = 198, 41.9%), and the US (n = 169, 35.7%) were the most common treatment destinations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm active and ongoing interest in using crowdfunding platforms to finance CAM cancer interventions. They confirm previous findings that CAM users with cancer tend to have late stage cancers, cancers with high mortality rates, and specific diseases such as breast cancer. These findings can inform targeted responses where facilities engage in misleading marketing practices and the efficacy of interventions is unproven.
Assuntos
Terapias Complementares/economia , Crowdsourcing/economia , Neoplasias/economia , Neoplasias/terapia , Obtenção de Fundos/economia , HumanosAssuntos
Terapias Complementares/economia , Crowdsourcing , Financiamento da Assistência à Saúde , Neoplasias/terapia , Terapias Complementares/métodos , Terapias Complementares/mortalidade , Terapias Complementares/psicologia , Crowdsourcing/ética , Crowdsourcing/estatística & dados numéricos , Financiamento da Assistência à Saúde/ética , Humanos , Neoplasias/economia , Neoplasias/mortalidade , Neoplasias/psicologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Medical tourism is a practice where patients travel internationally to purchase medical services. Medical tourists travel abroad for reasons including costly care, long wait times for care, and limited availability of desired procedures stemming from legal and/or regulatory restrictions. This paper examines bariatric (weight loss) surgery obtained abroad by Canadians through the lens of 'circumvention tourism' - typically applied to cases of circumvention of legal barriers but here applied to regulatory circumvention. Despite bariatric surgery being available domestically through public funding, many Canadians travel abroad to obtain these surgeries in order to circumvent barriers restricting access to this care. Little, however, is known about why these barriers push some patients to obtain these surgeries abroad and the effects of this circumvention. METHODS: Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 20 former Canadian bariatric tourists between February and May of 2016. Interview questions probed patients' motivations for seeking care abroad, as well as experiences with attempting to obtain care domestically and internationally. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and then thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Three key barriers to access were identified: (1) structural barriers resulting in limited locally available options; (2) strict body mass index cut-off points to qualify for publicly-funded surgery; and (3) the extended wait-time and level of commitment required of the mandatory pre-operative program in Canada. It was not uncommon for participants to experience a combination, if not all, of these barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, these barriers restricting domestic access to bariatric care in Canada may leave Canadian patients with a sense that their health care system is not adequately addressing their specific health care needs. In circumventing these barriers, patients may feel empowered in their health care opportunities; however, significant concerns are raised when patients bypass protections built into the health system. Given the practical limitations of a publicly funded health care system, these barriers to care are likely to persist. Health professionals and policy makers in Canada should consider these barriers in the future when examining the implications medical tourism for bariatric surgery holds for Canadians.