The digital landscape is increasingly becoming a pivotal space where healthcare professionals (HCPs) share, debate, and refine their understanding of complex medical issues, including breast cancer treatment. An analysis of HCP discussions on public social media platforms, as referenced by CREATION.co, and closed social media platforms, such as G-Med, reveals powerful insights into how these professionals perceive the challenges and opportunities in breast cancer care. In this article we analyse the difference of social discourse on closed and public social media platforms. We summarise the insights gleaned from analysing both public (83,516 data points) and private (5,929 data points) social media platforms over the last 12 months on the topic of breast cancer.
The imperative of access: a divergence in focus
Access to breast cancer treatment is a recurrent theme among HCPs across both public and closed social media platforms, albeit with nuanced differences. On public platforms, HCPs predominantly highlight the importance of early diagnosis and rapid treatment by recognising signs and symptoms, advocating for awareness as a preventative measure. The sentiment here is clear: Why battle late-stage cancer when early detection can lead to significantly better outcomes? An example of this is a post by breast endocrine surgeon, Dr Noor Abdullah, which received a significant amount of attention.
Please be aware of breast cancer symptoms. Early diagnosis of cancer increases the chances for successful treatment. pic.twitter.com/v34yW4JGxM
— Noor Hisham Abdullah (@DGHisham) October 17, 2023
Additionally, the main topics which HCPs discussed on open platforms were access and barriers to treatment, as well as early diagnosis and wanting to have more trial data access.
By contrast, discussions on closed platforms like G-Med often revolve around logistical barriers that impede access to treatment, as highlighted in 19% of physician discussions, particularly in underserved areas where access to advanced diagnostic tools like imaging remains a challenge. Physicians also discuss issues related to accessing immunotherapy trials, which often require travel to specialised centres. The conversation moves from individual patient awareness to a broader critique of healthcare system inefficiencies that contribute to treatment delays and unequal access. Examples of this are evident when looking closer at the data: 22% of HCPs discuss quality of life, 20% of HCPs talk about treatment options, 17% talk about patient management, outcomes and recurrence prevention.
Health equity: an underlying, yet crucial, concern
Health equity emerges as a topic of concern, although its prominence varies between platforms. On public social media, the conversation around health equity is relatively muted, with only a small fraction of posts (1.25%) addressing disparities in breast cancer care. However, within this subset, the discussion often centres on racial and ethnic disparities, with HCPs expressing concern over how these factors impact access to screening and treatment. The focus here is on the broader societal and economic factors that contribute to unequal health outcomes.
Conversely, on closed platforms, discussions on health equity are more implicitly woven into broader conversations about access and treatment efficacy. While not always labelled as “equity,” the underlying theme is evident as HCPs discuss the challenges of providing personalised care in less well-funded healthcare settings. Only 12% of discussions explicitly touched on early detection challenges, while 10% focused on genetic testing to assess risk, the G-Med data highlights that the issue of equity is not overtly discussed but surfaces in the context of access to newer therapies, particularly in rural and underserved regions, where availability of advanced diagnostics and treatments remains limited.
The promise and perils of emerging treatments
The advent of new breast cancer treatments is met with considerable enthusiasm on both public and closed social media platforms. On public platforms, HCPs share excitement about innovative therapies and their potential to significantly improve patient outcomes. The approval of drugs like trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (Enhertu) and the promise of immunotherapy are frequently celebrated as breakthroughs that could redefine survival rates, especially in aggressive breast cancer subtypes. The below chart provides insights into HCPs’ sentiment towards products within the breast cancer treatment therapy area. Although the majority of HCPs’ sentiment appears to be neutral, it is clear that products are a topic that is important to HCPs especially because products aid their ability to serve their patients. Insights such as these provide valuable opportunities to understand the public debate amongst HCPs on topics they really care about.
However, on closed platforms, this enthusiasm is tempered with caution. Indeed, 25% of HCP on G-Med express concerns about the side effects associated with aggressive treatment regimens and the accessibility of these novel therapies. The discussion often centres on the disparity between the promise of these treatments and the practical challenges of making them available to all patients, particularly those who may need to travel to specialised centres for care. The data from G-Med also highlights a significant interest in personalised medicine, including the use of PARP inhibitors for BRCA-mutated cancers and the advantages they offer in specific subtypes like triple-negative breast cancer. The debate here underscores a key tension in modern healthcare: the excitement of innovation versus the reality of the challenges with providing equitable access.
Addressing misinformation: a persistent issue
Misinformation about breast cancer is still a concern among HCPs, particularly on public social media. Here, the conversation is focused on correcting common misconceptions, such as the erroneous belief that young women are not at risk of breast cancer. While the overall volume of posts by HCPs discussing misinformation is low, the issue remains a persistent challenge in the broader effort to ensure patients have access to accurate and reliable information. An example of an HCP tackling the misconception that women can be too young to have breast cancer is expressed in a post by Dr Rebecca Shatsky, which received significant public exposure with more than 140,000 views.
The average age of patients in my clinic today was around 30. Breast cancer can happen at any age. Please never tell any human they are “too young” to have breast cancer because you are dead wrong. #bcsm #onctwitter #MedTwitter
— Rebecca Shatsky, MD (@Dr_RShatsky) July 22, 2023
On closed platforms, the discussion around misinformation is less pronounced, yet it still surfaces within broader conversations about patient education and the role of HCPs in countering false narratives. The G-Med data reinforces that these platforms tend to focus on evidence-based dialogue, with fewer instances of misinformation compared to public platforms, due to the controlled environment in which discussions take place. This means that there is less emphasis on countering misinformation directly, but rather ensuring that the dialogue remains accurate and scientifically grounded.
Conclusion
The analysis of discussions on public and closed social media platforms reveals a complex landscape where HCPs navigate the challenges of breast cancer treatment. Public platforms offer a space for raising awareness and engaging with a broader audience, often focusing on early diagnosis and the importance of timely access to care, as well as sharing innovations associated with better patient outcomes. Diving deeper into the online public conversation, further topics such as new scientific approaches are discussed, albeit these tend to be more niche in nature. While the majority of online HCP conversation tends to cover excitement for a growing treatment landscape which enables HCPs to keep providing improved care for their patients, HCPs share caution about some new technologies, too. One notable example is a post by Professor of Primary Health Care at University of Oxford, Trisha Greenhalgh, who shared a personal story of breast cancer diagnosis, warning about relying on Ai in the absence of a clinician.
In contrast, closed platforms facilitate deeper, more technical discussions among professionals, where the nuances of health equity, treatment accessibility, and the balance between innovation and practicality are more thoroughly explored. Incorporating the G-Med insights, discussions on specific treatment options for HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer are marked by a balance between enthusiasm and concerns about accessibility. This is particularly pronounced in regions where healthcare infrastructure is less developed, leading to unequal access to advanced therapies.
As these platforms continue to host the discourse around breast cancer care, understanding the distinct dynamics of both open and closed social networks can offer valuable insights into how HCPs perceive and address the evolving challenges in this critical field.
Listen to the HCP voice
Examining both open and closed social media platforms enables you to listen to what HCPs really care about. Only when you understand their most important topics and ideas can you engage them meaningfully. Aligning your messaging, through comprehensive listening, with the HCP community will enable you to achieve your outcomes while contributing to their efforts to increase patient outcomes.
This article is informed by research thanks to a partnership between CREATION.co and G-Med, the closed, validated physician-only social media network. To find out how this partnership can provide you with deep HCP insights from public and closed social media, get in touch with CREATION.co.
To find out about engaging HCPs in G-Med’s closed social media platform, contact G-Med.
