Prostate cancer guidelines on Web 2.0-based sites: The screening dilemma continues online

Daniela B. Friedman; Alexis Koskan; India D. Rose

doi:10.1007/s13187-010-0180-0

Prostate cancer guidelines on Web 2.0-based sites: The screening dilemma continues online

Daniela B. Friedman, Alexis Koskan, India D. Rose

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Little is known about prostate cancer (PrCA) screening information on participatory, interactive, and consumer-generated websites collectively referred to as Web 2.0. A content analysis was conducted of PrCA resources on four highly trafficked Web 2.0 social book-marking sites. A total of 127 webpages were analyzed. Most content was from news websites (48.9%) and blogs (37.8%). PrCA screening was mentioned on 95.3% of pages; only 30.7% discussed the prostate-specific antigen test. Less than half (43.8%) mentioned current screening guidelines. PrCA content is inconsistent on Web 2.0 sites. Future research should assess the readability and usability of Web 2.0 cancer resources.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	188-193
Number of pages	6
Journal	Journal of Cancer Education
Volume	26
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0180-0
State	Published - Mar 1 2011
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Health communication
Prostate cancer
Screening
Social media
Web 2.0

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Oncology
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Access to Document

10.1007/s13187-010-0180-0

Cite this

@article{ee5ad6e656064c7b9922f0095fed1da1,

title = "Prostate cancer guidelines on Web 2.0-based sites: The screening dilemma continues online",

abstract = "Little is known about prostate cancer (PrCA) screening information on participatory, interactive, and consumer-generated websites collectively referred to as Web 2.0. A content analysis was conducted of PrCA resources on four highly trafficked Web 2.0 social book-marking sites. A total of 127 webpages were analyzed. Most content was from news websites (48.9%) and blogs (37.8%). PrCA screening was mentioned on 95.3% of pages; only 30.7% discussed the prostate-specific antigen test. Less than half (43.8%) mentioned current screening guidelines. PrCA content is inconsistent on Web 2.0 sites. Future research should assess the readability and usability of Web 2.0 cancer resources.",

keywords = "Health communication, Prostate cancer, Screening, Social media, Web 2.0",

author = "Friedman, {Daniela B.} and Alexis Koskan and Rose, {India D.}",

year = "2011",

month = mar,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/s13187-010-0180-0",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "26",

pages = "188--193",

journal = "Journal of Cancer Education",

issn = "0885-8195",

publisher = "Springer Publishing Company",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prostate cancer guidelines on Web 2.0-based sites

T2 - The screening dilemma continues online

AU - Friedman, Daniela B.

AU - Koskan, Alexis

AU - Rose, India D.

PY - 2011/3/1

Y1 - 2011/3/1

N2 - Little is known about prostate cancer (PrCA) screening information on participatory, interactive, and consumer-generated websites collectively referred to as Web 2.0. A content analysis was conducted of PrCA resources on four highly trafficked Web 2.0 social book-marking sites. A total of 127 webpages were analyzed. Most content was from news websites (48.9%) and blogs (37.8%). PrCA screening was mentioned on 95.3% of pages; only 30.7% discussed the prostate-specific antigen test. Less than half (43.8%) mentioned current screening guidelines. PrCA content is inconsistent on Web 2.0 sites. Future research should assess the readability and usability of Web 2.0 cancer resources.

AB - Little is known about prostate cancer (PrCA) screening information on participatory, interactive, and consumer-generated websites collectively referred to as Web 2.0. A content analysis was conducted of PrCA resources on four highly trafficked Web 2.0 social book-marking sites. A total of 127 webpages were analyzed. Most content was from news websites (48.9%) and blogs (37.8%). PrCA screening was mentioned on 95.3% of pages; only 30.7% discussed the prostate-specific antigen test. Less than half (43.8%) mentioned current screening guidelines. PrCA content is inconsistent on Web 2.0 sites. Future research should assess the readability and usability of Web 2.0 cancer resources.

KW - Health communication

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Screening

KW - Social media

KW - Web 2.0

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959496254&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959496254&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s13187-010-0180-0

DO - 10.1007/s13187-010-0180-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 21153573

AN - SCOPUS:79959496254

SN - 0885-8195

VL - 26

SP - 188

EP - 193

JO - Journal of Cancer Education

JF - Journal of Cancer Education

IS - 1

ER -

Prostate cancer guidelines on Web 2.0-based sites: The screening dilemma continues online

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this