Social Media Promotion of Health Tests With Potential for Overdiagnosis or Overuse: Protocol for a Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, social media have emerged as important spaces for commercial marketing of health tests, which can be used for the screening and diagnosis of otherwise generally healthy people. However, little is known about how health tests are promoted on social media, whether the information provided is accurate and balanced, and if there is transparency around conflicts of interest. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand and quantify how social media is being used to discuss or promote health tests with the potential for overdiagnosis or overuse to generally healthy people. METHODS: Content analysis of social media posts on the anti-Mullerian hormone test, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging scan, multicancer early detection, testosterone test, and gut microbe test from influential international social media accounts on Instagram and TikTok. The 5 tests have been identified as having the following criteria: (1) there are evidence-based concerns about overdiagnosis or overuse, (2) there is evidence or concerns that the results of tests do not lead to improved health outcomes for generally healthy people and may cause harm or waste, and (3) the tests are being promoted on social media to generally healthy people. English language text-only posts, images, infographics, articles, recorded videos including reels, and audio-only posts are included. Posts from accounts with <1000 followers as well as stories, live videos, and non-English posts are excluded. Using keywords related to the test, the top posts were searched and screened until there were 100 eligible posts from each platform for each test (total of 1000 posts). Data from the caption, video, and on-screen text are being summarized and extracted into a Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation) spreadsheet and included in the analysis. The analysis will take a combined inductive approach when generating key themes and a deductive approach using a prespecified framework. Quantitative data will be analyzed in Stata SE (version 18.0; Stata Corp). RESULTS: Data on Instagram and TikTok have been searched and screened. Analysis has now commenced. The findings will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed international medical journals and will also be presented at national and international conferences in late 2024 and 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This study will contribute to the limited evidence base on the nature of the relationship between social media and the problems of overdiagnosis and overuse of health care services. This understanding is essential to develop strategies to mitigate potential harm and plan solutions, with the aim of helping to protect members of the public from being marketed low-value tests, becoming patients unnecessarily, and taking resources away from genuine needs within the health system. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56899.

Low-Value Surgical Procedures in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Importance: Overuse of surgical procedures is increasing around the world and harms both individuals and health care systems by using resources that could otherwise be allocated to addressing the underuse of effective health care interventions. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is some limited country-specific evidence showing that overuse of surgical procedures is increasing, at least for certain procedures. Objectives: To assess factors associated with, extent and consequences of, and potential solutions for low-value surgical procedures in LMICs. Evidence Review: We searched 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Global Index Medicus) for studies published from database inception until April 27, 2022, with no restrictions on date or language. A combination of MeSH terms and free-text words about the overuse of surgical procedures was used. Studies examining the problem of overuse of surgical procedures in LMICs were included and categorized by major focus: the extent of overuse, associated factors, consequences, and solutions. Findings: Of 4276 unique records identified, 133 studies across 63 countries were included, reporting on more than 9.1 million surgical procedures (median per study, 894 [IQR, 97-4259]) and with more than 11.4 million participants (median per study, 989 [IQR, 257-6857]). Fourteen studies (10.5%) were multinational. Of the 119 studies (89.5%) originating from single countries, 69 (58.0%) were from upper-middle-income countries and 30 (25.2%) were from East Asia and the Pacific. Of the 42 studies (31.6%) reporting extent of overuse of surgical procedures, most (36 [85.7%]) reported on unnecessary cesarean delivery, with estimated rates in LMICs ranging from 12% to 81%. Evidence on other surgical procedures was limited and included abdominal and percutaneous cardiovascular surgical procedures. Consequences of low-value surgical procedures included harms and costs, such as an estimated US $3.29 billion annual cost of unnecessary cesarean deliveries in China. Associated factors included private financing, and solutions included social media campaigns and multifaceted interventions such as audits, feedback, and reminders. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found growing evidence of overuse of surgical procedures in LMICs, which may generate significant harm and waste of limited resources; the majority of studies reporting overuse were about unnecessary cesarean delivery. Therefore, a better understanding of the problems in other surgical procedures and a robust evaluation of solutions are needed.

Interactions between Australian cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes. SETTING: Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians' experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom. PARTICIPANTS: 16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%). OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped. RESULTS: Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians' views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions. Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a 'middle road'. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area.

Overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

Objective: To identify and summarize the evidence about the extent of overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries, its drivers, consequences and potential solutions. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases PubMed®, Embase®, APA PsycINFO® and Global Index Medicus using a combination of MeSH terms and free text words around overuse of medications and overtreatment. We included studies in any language published before 25 October 2021 that reported on the extent of overuse, its drivers, consequences and solutions. Findings: We screened 3489 unique records and included 367 studies reporting on over 5.1 million prescriptions across 80 low- and middle-income countries - with studies from 58.6% (17/29) of all low-, 62.0% (31/50) of all lower-middle- and 60.0% (33/55) of all upper-middle-income countries. Of the included studies, 307 (83.7%) reported on the extent of overuse of medications, with estimates ranging from 7.3% to 98.2% (interquartile range: 30.2-64.5). Commonly overused classes included antimicrobials, psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors and antihypertensive drugs. Drivers included limited knowledge of harms of overuse, polypharmacy, poor regulation and financial influences. Consequences were patient harm and cost. Only 11.4% (42/367) of studies evaluated solutions, which included regulatory reforms, educational, deprescribing and audit-feedback initiatives. Conclusion: Growing evidence suggests overuse of medications is widespread within low- and middle-income countries, across multiple drug classes, with few data of solutions from randomized trials. Opportunities exist to build collaborations to rigorously develop and evaluate potential solutions to reduce overuse of medications.

Overdiagnosis and overuse of diagnostic and screening tests in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Overdiagnosis and overuse of healthcare services harm individuals, take resources that could be used to address underuse, and threaten the sustainability of health systems. These problems are attracting increasing attention in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Unaware of any review of relevant evidence, we conducted a scoping review of the evidence around overdiagnosis and overuse of diagnostic and screening tests in LMICs. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Index Medicus for relevant studies published until 24 May 2021, with no restrictions on date or language. We categorised included studies by major focus (overdiagnosis, overuse of tests, or both) and main themes (presence or estimates of extent; drivers; consequences and solutions). RESULTS: We identified 2763 unique records and included 162 articles reporting on 154 studies across 55 countries, involving over 2.8 million participants and/or requests for tests. Almost half the studies focused on overdiagnosis (70; 45.5%), one-third on overuse of tests (61; 39.6%) and one-fifth on both (23; 14.9%). Common overdiagnosed conditions included malaria (61; 39.6%) and thyroid cancer (25; 16.2%), estimated to be >70% in China. Overused tests included imaging (n=25 studies) such as CT and MRI; laboratory investigations (n=18) such as serological tests and tumour markers; and procedures (n=14) such as colonoscopy. Drivers included fear of conflict with patients and expanding disease definitions. Common consequences included unnecessary treatments such as antimalarials, and wasted resources, with costs of malaria overdiagnosis estimated at US$86 million in Sudan in 1 year alone. Only 9% of studies discussed solutions, which included addressing inappropriately lowered diagnostic thresholds and reforming test-ordering processes. CONCLUSIONS: Overdiagnosis and overuse of tests are widespread in LMICs and generate significant harm and waste. Better understanding of the problems and robust evaluation of solutions is needed, informed by a new global alliance of researchers and policy-makers.

Interventions to improve media coverage of medical research: a codesigned feasibility and acceptability study with Australian journalists.

OBJECTIVES: Although the media can influence public perceptions and utilisation of healthcare, journalists generally receive no routine training in interpreting and reporting on medical research. Given growing evidence about the problems of medical overuse, the need for quality media reporting has become a greater priority. This study aimed to codesign and assess the feasibility of a multicomponent training intervention for journalists in Australia. DESIGN: A small pragmatic feasibility study using a pre- and postdesign. SETTING: 90 min online workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Eight journalists currently working in Australia, recruited through the study's journalist advisor and existing contacts of the researchers. INTERVENTION: The training intervention covered a range of topics, including study designs, conflicts of interest, misleading medical statistics, population screening and overdiagnosis. The intervention also provided tools to help journalists with reporting, including a Tip Sheet and list of expert contacts in health and medicine. Preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires were administered via Qualtrics. MEASURES: Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and journalists' knowledge of overdiagnosis and common issues with health stories. Quantitative results were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: All participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires, and 6 completed the 6-week follow-up (75% retention). Feasibility findings suggest the intervention is acceptable and relevant to journalists, with participants indicating the workshop increased confidence with reporting on medical research. We observed increases in knowledge preworkshop to postworkshop for all knowledge measures on overdiagnosis and common issues with media coverage of medicine. Analysis of free-text responses identified several areas for improvement, such as including more examples to aid understanding of the counterintuitive topic of overdiagnosis and more time for discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Piloting suggested the multicomponent training intervention is acceptable to journalists and provided important feedback and insights to inform a future trial of the intervention's impact on media coverage of medicine.

A novel methodological framework was described for detecting and quantifying overdiagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Methods to quantify overdiagnosis of screen detected cancer have been developed, but methods for quantifying overdiagnosis of noncancer conditions (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic) have been lacking. We aimed to develop a methodological framework for quantifying overdiagnosis that may be used for asymptomatic or symptomatic conditions and used gestational diabetes mellitus as an example of how it may be applied. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identify two earlier definitions for overdiagnosis, a narrower prognosis-based definition and a wider utility-based definition. Building on the central importance of the concepts of prognostic information and clinical utility of a diagnosis, we consider the following questions: within a target population, do people found to have a disease using one diagnostic strategy but found not to have the disease using another diagnostic strategy (so called 'additional diagnoses'), have an increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes without treatment (prognosis evidence), and/or a decreased risk of adverse outcomes with treatment (utility evidence)? RESULTS: Using Causal Directed Acyclic Graphs and fair umpires, we illuminate the relationships between diagnostics strategies and the frequency of overdiagnosis. We then use the example of gestational diabetes mellitus to demonstrate how the Fair Umpire framework may be applied to estimate overdiagnosis. CONCLUSION: Our framework may be used to quantify overdiagnosis in noncancer conditions (and in cancer conditions) and to guide further studies on this topic.

Australian Cancer Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Survey of Attitudes and Interactions.

PURPOSE: Interactions between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry may create conflicts of interest that can adversely affect patient care. We aimed to survey cancer physicians regarding their attitudes toward and interactions with industry. METHODS: We surveyed Australian cancer physicians between December 2020 and February 2021, questioning how often they interacted with industry and their attitudes toward this. We also assessed factors associated with accepting payments from industry and the amount received, and opinions on policies and industry influence. We used logistic and linear regression to examine links between attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: There were 116 responses (94 complete). Almost half (n = 53 of 115, 46.1%) felt that there was a positive relationship between cancer physicians and industry. Most (n = 79 of 104, 76.0%) interacted with industry at least once a month, and 67.7% (n = 63 of 93) had received nonresearch payments from industry previously, with a median value of 2,000 Australian dollars over 1 year. Most respondents believed that interactions could influence prescribing while simultaneously denying influence on their own prescribing (n = 66 of 94, 70.2%). Those who judged general sales representative interactions (odds ratio [OR] 9.37 [95% CI, 1.05 to 83.41], P = .045) or clinician sponsorship (OR 3.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.30], P = .049) to be more acceptable also met with sales representatives more frequently. Physicians were more likely to accept industry payments when they deemed sponsorship of clinicians for conferences (OR 10.55 [95% CI, 2.33 to 47.89], P = .002) or honoraria for advisory board membership more acceptable (OR 3.91 [95% CI, 1.04 to 14.74], P = .04) or when they had higher belief in industry influence over own prescribing (OR 25.51 [95% CI, 2.70 to 241.45], P = .005). CONCLUSION: Australian cancer physicians interact with industry frequently, and those who feel positive about these interactions are likely to do so more often. More research is needed to understand the motivations behind these interactions.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically. METHODS: A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Journalists' views on media coverage of medical tests and overdiagnosis: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Promotional media coverage of early detection tests is an important driver of overdiagnosis. Following research evidence that global media coverage presents the benefits of testing healthy people far more frequently than harms, and gives little coverage to overdiagnosis, we sought to examine journalists' views on media reporting of tests, overdiagnosis, and strategies to improve critical reporting on tests. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted between February and March 2020 and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Twenty-two journalists (mainly specialising in health reporting, average 14.5 years' experience) based in Australia. RESULTS: This sample of journalists acknowledged the potential harms of medical tests but felt that knowledge of harms was low among journalists and the public at large. Most were aware of the term overdiagnosis, but commonly felt that it is challenging to both understand and communicate in light of strong beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Journalists felt that newsworthiness in the form of major public health impact was the key ingredient for stories about medical tests. The journalists acknowledged that factors, like the press release and 'click bait culture' in particular, can influence the framing of coverage about tests. Lack of knowledge and training, as well as time pressures, were perceived to be the main barriers to critical reporting on tests. Journalists felt that training and better access to information about potential harms would enable more critical reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Effectively communicating overdiagnosis is a challenge in light of common beliefs about the benefits of testing and the culture of current journalism practices. Providing journalists with training, support and better access to information about potential harms of tests could aid critical reporting of tests.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on utilisation of healthcare services: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent and nature of changes in utilisation of healthcare services during COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review. ELIGIBILITY: Eligible studies compared utilisation of services during COVID-19 pandemic to at least one comparable period in prior years. Services included visits, admissions, diagnostics and therapeutics. Studies were excluded if from single centres or studied only patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and preprints were searched, without language restrictions, until 10 August, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, health services and impact. DATA ANALYSIS: Risk of bias was assessed by adapting the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, and a Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care tool. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics, graphical figures and narrative synthesis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was change in service utilisation between prepandemic and pandemic periods. Secondary outcome was the change in proportions of users of healthcare services with milder or more severe illness (eg, triage scores). RESULTS: 3097 unique references were identified, and 81 studies across 20 countries included, reporting on >11 million services prepandemic and 6.9 million during pandemic. For the primary outcome, there were 143 estimates of changes, with a median 37% reduction in services overall (IQR -51% to -20%), comprising median reductions for visits of 42% (-53% to -32%), admissions 28% (-40% to -17%), diagnostics 31% (-53% to -24%) and for therapeutics 30% (-57% to -19%). Among 35 studies reporting secondary outcomes, there were 60 estimates, with 27 (45%) reporting larger reductions in utilisation among people with a milder spectrum of illness, and 33 (55%) reporting no difference. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare utilisation decreased by about a third during the pandemic, with considerable variation, and with greater reductions among people with less severe illness. While addressing unmet need remains a priority, studies of health impacts of reductions may help health systems reduce unnecessary care in the postpandemic recovery. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020203729.

Head of bed elevation to relieve gastroesophageal reflux symptoms: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) - frequently used for relieving symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD) - raises long-term safety concerns, warranting evidence-based non-drug interventions. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of head-of-bed elevation on relieving symptoms of GORD in adults. METHODS: We included controlled trials comparing the effect of head-of-bed elevation interventions to control in adults with GORD. Two independent reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed quality of included studies. Primary outcomes were changes in GORD symptoms and use of PPIs. RESULTS: We screened 1206 records; and included five trials (four cross-over and one factorial) comprising 228 patients. All five included trials were judged to be at high-risk of performance bias and four of selection bias. Of five included trials, two used 'bed blocks' under the bed legs; one used 'sleeping on a wedge' pillow, and two used both. High heterogeneity in outcome measures and reported outcomes data precluded meta-analyses. The four studies that reported on GORD symptoms found an improvement among participants in the head-of-bed elevation; a high-quality crossover trial showed a clinical important reduction in symptom scores at 6 weeks (risk ratio of 2.1; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6). These results are supported by the observed improvement in physiological intra-oesophageal pH measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting limitations in available literature preclude definitive recommendations. However, head-of-bed elevation could be still considered as a cheap and safe alternative to drug interventions with unfavourable safety profiles. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: http://osf.io/2hz3j.

Media coverage of calls to rename low-risk cancers: a content analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The use of more medicalised labels can increase both concern about illness and the desire for more invasive treatment. This study analyses the media's coverage of an Analysis article in The BMJ which generated a large amount of high-profile international media coverage. It aims to understand how to better communicate messages about low-risk cancers and overdiagnosis to the public. DESIGN: Content analysis of media coverage. SETTING: Media was identified by Isentia Media Portal, searched in Google News and cross-checked in Factiva and Proquest databases from August 2018. METHODS: Media headlines, full text and open access public comments responding to the coverage on the article proposing to 'rename low-risk conditions currently labelled as cancer' were analysed to determine the main themes. RESULTS: 45 original media articles and their associated public comments (n=167) were identified and included in the analysis. Overall, headlines focused on cancer generally and there was little mention of 'low-risk', 'overdiagnosis' or 'overtreatment'. The full text generally presented a more balanced view of the evidence and were supportive of the proposal, however, public responses tended to be more negative towards the idea of renaming low-risk cancers and indicated confusion. Comments seemed to focus on the headlines rather than the full article. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers a novel insight into media coverage of the complex and counterintuitive problem of overdiagnosis. Continued deliberation on how to communicate similar topics to the public through the mainstream media is needed. Future work in the area of low-risk cancer communication should consider the powerful impact of people's previous experience with a cancer diagnosis and the criticism about being paternalistic and concealing the truth from patients.

Mixed methods evaluation of workshops for citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interests in healthcare.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate workshops delivered to citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interest in healthcare, transparency databases which disclose industry payments in the USA and Australia and the pros and cons of advocacy groups accepting industry sponsorship. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of workshop participant recorded discussions, and pre, post and 3-month follow-up questionnaires on confidence and knowledge about financial conflicts of interest, transparency databases and the merits of advocacy organisations accepting industry sponsorship. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: 48 citizen health advocates participated in a half-day workshop, held in four Australian cities, which ended with a 1-hour recorded discussion. Participants were recruited with assistance from leading state-based health advocacy organisations. RESULTS: The thematic analysis of the recorded discussions revealed two major themes, (i) transparency and (ii) relationships with industry; and three minor themes: a lack of awareness about conflicts of interest and transparency, issues relating to trust and next steps in terms of potential reforms. In relation to transparency, participants felt strong support for transparency, strongly favouring the mandatory, extensive and accessible US Open Payments over the self-regulatory Australian model. Participants also noted that transparency had limitations, including the utility of disclosed information. In relation to industry sponsorship of advocacy groups, some participants expressed an openness to and support for accepting sponsorship, while many expressed a caution around potential downsides. Questionnaire results showed increases in both confidence and knowledge after the workshop, though only 23 of 48 participants returned the 3-month follow-up questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Following a half-day workshop, citizen health advocates recruited by leading health advocacy organisations expressed strong support for tough transparency rules, and mixed feelings about advocacy groups accepting sponsorship from industry. Study limitations include a non-representative sample and a large drop-out at the 3-month post-workshop follow-up.