Zenone Marco, Snyder Jeremy, van Schalkwyk May, Bélisle-Pipon Jean-Christophe, Hartwell Greg, Caulfield Timothy, Maani Nason
Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London, UK.
Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Blusson Hall, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC Canada.
BJC Rep. 2024;2(1):55. doi: 10.1038/s44276-024-00071-9. Epub 2024 Aug 6.
Alternative cancer clinics, who provide treatment associated with earlier time to death, actively seek to create favorable views of their services online. An unexplored means where alternative cancer clinics can shape their appeal is their Google search results.
We retrieved the Google listing and Google reviews of 47 prominent alternative cancer clinics on August 22, 2022. We then conducted a content analysis to assess the information cancer patients are faced with online.
Google listings of alternative treatment providers rarely declared the clinic was an alternative clinic versus a conventional primary cancer treatment provider (12.8% declared; 83.0% undeclared). The clinics were highly rated (median, 4.5 stars of 5). Reasons for positive reviews included treatment quality ( = 519), care ( = 420), and outcomes ( = 316). 288 reviews presented the clinics to cure or improve cancer. Negative reviews presented alternative clinics to financially exploit patients with ineffective treatment ( = 98), worsen patients' condition ( = 72), provide poor care ( = 41), and misrepresent outcomes ( = 23).
The favorable Google listing and reviews of alternative clinics contribute to harmful online ecosystems. Reviews provide compelling narratives but are an ineffective indicator of treatment outcomes. Google lacks safeguards for truthful reviews and should not be used for medical decision-making.
替代癌症诊所提供的治疗与更早的死亡时间相关，它们积极寻求在网上塑造对其服务的良好看法。替代癌症诊所塑造其吸引力的一种未被探索的方式是它们在谷歌上的搜索结果。
我们于2022年8月22日检索了47家著名替代癌症诊所的谷歌列表和谷歌评论。然后我们进行了内容分析，以评估癌症患者在网上面临的信息。
替代治疗提供者的谷歌列表很少声明该诊所是替代诊所，而不是传统的原发性癌症治疗提供者（12.8%声明；83.0%未声明）。这些诊所的评分很高（中位数为5星中的4.5星）。好评的原因包括治疗质量（=519）、护理（=420）和治疗效果（=316）。288条评论称这些诊所可以治愈或改善癌症。差评称替代诊所通过无效治疗在经济上剥削患者（=98）、使患者病情恶化（=72）、护理不佳（=41）以及歪曲治疗效果（=23）。
替代诊所良好的谷歌列表和评论促成了有害的在线生态系统。评论提供了引人注目的叙述，但不是治疗效果的有效指标。谷歌缺乏对真实评论的保障措施，不应将其用于医疗决策。
