Zenone Marco, Snyder Jeremy, Bélisle-Pipon Jean-Christophe, Caulfield Timothy, van Schalkwyk May, Maani Nason
Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
JMIR Infodemiology. 2023 May 31;3:e43548. doi: 10.2196/43548.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
与接受传统治疗的癌症患者相比，替代癌症治疗与更高的死亡风险相关。轶事证据表明，癌症患者会在社交媒体上查看推广替代癌症治疗的付费广告，但此类广告的范围和性质仍不明确。这种情况表明迫切需要对社交媒体上的替代癌症治疗广告进行调查。
本研究旨在系统分析Meta平台（包括Facebook、Instagram、Messenger和受众网络）上知名替代癌症治疗从业者的广告活动。我们特别试图确定：（1）Meta社交媒体平台上是否存在替代癌症治疗的付费广告；（2）替代癌症治疗提供者吸引潜在患者的策略和信息；（3）替代治疗的疗效是如何被描述的。
在2021年12月6日至2021年12月12日期间，我们使用Meta广告库收集了替代癌症诊所的活跃广告。收集的信息包括识别号、网址、活跃/不活跃状态、发布/运行日期、广告商页面名称以及广告的屏幕截图（图像）或录制内容（视频）。然后，我们进行了内容分析，以确定替代癌症治疗提供者如何传达其服务所宣称的益处，并评估他们如何描述替代癌症治疗的疗效。
我们在Meta（Facebook、Instagram或Messenger）上识别出了来自11家替代癌症诊所的310条付费广告，这些广告推销替代治疗方法、护理和干预措施。替代癌症治疗提供者通过八种策略吸引潜在患者：（1）将广告商表现为合法的医疗提供者（n = 289，93.2%）；（2）吸引治疗选择有限的人群（n = 203，65.5%）；（3）客户推荐（n = 168，54.2%）；（4）推广整体方法（n = 121，39%）；（5）推广关怀信息（n = 81，26.1%）；（6）与科学和研究相关的言辞（n = 72，23.2%）；（7）与最新技术相关的言辞（n = 63，20.3%）；（8）将治疗重点放在癌症起源和病因上（n = 43，13.9%）。总体而言，25.8%（n = 80）的广告包含直接声明，声称提供者的治疗可以治愈癌症或延长生命。
我们的结果表明，替代癌症治疗提供者正在使用Meta广告产品来推销缺乏科学依据的癌症治疗方法。广告经常提及癌症的“替代”和“自然”治疗方法。模仿循证医学提供者的图像和文本内容给人一种印象，即所提供的治疗是有效的癌症医疗选择。广告通过分享据称已治愈或延长生命的既往患者的推荐，利用了晚期和预后不良患者的希望。我们建议Meta在给予医疗相关广告商广告许可之前，引入一个强制性的、由人工主导的授权程序，该程序不依赖人工智能。进一步的研究应关注社交媒体平台广告产品与公共卫生之间的利益冲突。
