Oncobiology Program/Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis, Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas Filho, 373 - Bloco H Sala H2003. Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, 21941-902, Brazil.
Oswaldo Cruz Institute/Fundação Oswaldo Cruz and Oncobiology Program/Instituto de Bioquímica Médica Leopoldo de Meis. Centro de Ciências da Saúde, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Carlos Chagas Filho, 373 - Bloco H Sala H2003. Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, 21941-902, Brazil.
J Cancer Educ. 2020 Dec;35(6):1206-1218. doi: 10.1007/s13187-019-01583-6.
Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) Talks have represented a broad source of health communication since 1984. However, to date, no studies exist on how this tool addresses the question of cancer. In this paper, we aim to illuminate two major issues: (1) Are TED Talks a good source for cancer communication? (2) How does the public respond to cancer-related TED Talk lectures? To this end, we searched for the keyword 'cancer' on the TED.com website in January 2018. All transcripts were obtained along with related information such as numbers of views, like and dislike rates. We also analysed a sample of 938 comments, corresponding to the 10 most relevant (if existing) regarding each video on TED.com and YouTube platforms. From the 49 videos pertaining to cancer, 33 were scientific-related, whereas 11 focused on speakers' personal experiences. Only three videos approached prevention themes of major relevance for cancer communication to broad audiences. Instead, they brought more therapy (16) and diagnosis (12) issues and often promoted exaggerated extrapolations of research results (20). Scientific lectures also made frequent use of a 'bad vs. good' duality discourse by criticizing current science/policies and then offering a solution/hope. Regarding the public response, non-scientific lectures had more negative votes than scientific counterparts. Moreover, the audience exhibited two major motivations to provide a comment: to judge the lectures and to share personal stories. We believe that our observations are of considerable relevance for helping in enhancing this tool as a substantial cancer communication source.
自 1984 年以来,技术、娱乐、设计(TED)演讲一直是健康传播的重要来源。然而,迄今为止,尚无研究探讨这一工具如何解决癌症问题。在本文中,我们旨在阐明两个主要问题:(1)TED 演讲是否是癌症传播的良好来源?(2)公众如何回应与癌症相关的 TED 演讲?为此,我们于 2018 年 1 月在 TED.com 网站上搜索了关键字“癌症”。我们获取了所有演讲稿以及与演讲相关的信息,如浏览量、点赞和差评数量。我们还分析了 938 条评论,这些评论对应 TED.com 和 YouTube 平台上每个视频的前 10 条相关评论。在与癌症相关的 49 个视频中,有 33 个是科学相关的,而 11 个则关注演讲者的个人经历。只有三个视频涉及预防主题,这些主题与向广大受众传播癌症信息息息相关。然而,这些视频更多地涉及治疗(16)和诊断(12)问题,并且经常夸大研究结果的推断(20)。科学演讲还经常通过批评当前的科学/政策,然后提供解决方案/希望,来使用“好与坏”的二元对立话语。关于公众的反应,非科学演讲的差评比科学演讲多。此外,观众发表评论主要有两个动机:评判演讲和分享个人故事。我们相信,我们的观察结果对于帮助增强这个工具作为癌症传播的重要来源具有重要意义。