Social media (SM) is a burgeoning source of social support for young adults (YAs). We explored the language used to communicate about YA cancer on Instagram and for indicators of social support (i.e., number of likes and comments).
Methods:
Instagram posts using #youngadultcancer were randomly selected (N = 50). Text and hashtags were collected, and posts were coded for gender (female and male), treatment status (active treatment and survivorship), type of user (individual and organization), and caregiver status (yes and no). Indicators of social support, valence (e.g., positive vs. negative terms), and lexical content (e.g., emotional terms and pronouns) were measured using Yoshikoder and Linguistic Inquiry Word Count and compared by gender, treatment status, type of user, and caregiver status.
Results:
Survivors' posts had more likes compared to those in active treatment (mean: 54.5 vs. 32.3, p = 0.03). Individuals' posts had more comments than those of organizations (mean: 5.3 vs. 1.2, p = 0.01). More positive (30%) than negative (13%) terms were used by survivors (p < 0.01) and those in active treatment (20% vs. 9%, p = 0.04). Individuals' used more positive than negative language (p < 0.01), whereas organizations used equally positive and negative terms. Survivors used more emotional terms (79.6% vs. 34.9%, p < 0.01) and fewer pronouns (mean: 39.5 vs. 71.7, p = 0.01) than those in active treatment. Organizations (71.0%) used more emotional terms than individuals (55.9%, p = 0.03).
Conclusions:
We describe how Instagram users communicate about YA cancer and whether the language they use garners social support. Studying online language use may help YA patients, caregivers, and organizations use SM to gain social support.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Social media “likes” healthcare: from marketing to social business. Birmingham, AL: PWC Health Research Institute; 2012.
2.
VillantiAC, JohnsonAL, IlakkuvanV, et al.Social media use and access to digital technology in US young adults in 2016. J Med internet Res. 2017; 19(6):e196.
3.
MengJ, MartinezL, HolmstromA, et al.Research on social networking sites and social support from 2004 to 2015: A narrative review and directions for future research. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2017; 20(1):44–51.
4.
FoxS. The social life of health information. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project: PewResearchCenter; 2011.
5.
RainsSA.Language style matching as a predictor of perceived social support in computer-mediated interaction among individuals coping with illness. Communic Res. 2016; 43(5):694–712.
6.
MyrickJG, HoltonAE, HimelboimI, LoveB. #Stupidcancer: exploring a typology of social support and the role of emotional expression in a social media community. Health Commun. 2016; 31(5):596–605.
7.
WrightKB, MillerCH. A measure of weak-tie/strong-tie support network preference. Commun Monogr. 2010; 77(4):500–17.
8.
GranovetterM.The Strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol Theory. 1983; 1:201–33.
9.
GranovetterMS.The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973; 78(6):1360–80.
10.
WaltherJB, BoydS. Attraction to computer-mediated social support. Communication technology and society: audience adoption and uses. Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press; 2002; pp. 153–88.
11.
WrightK.Social support within an on-line cancer community: an assessment of emotional support, perceptions of advantages and disadvantages, and motives for using the community from a communication perspective. J Appl Commun Res. 2002; 30(3):195–209.
12.
ArnettJJ.Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol. 2000; 55(5):469–80.
13.
DochertySL, KayleM, MaslowGR, SantacroceSJ. The adolescent and young adult with cancer: A developmental life course perspective. Sem Oncol Nurs. 2015; 31(3):186–96.
14.
WarnerEL, KentEE, TrevinoKM, et al.Social well-being among adolescents and young adults with cancer: a systematic review. Cancer. 2016; 122(7):1029–37.
15.
Dellmann-JenkinsM, BlankemeyerM, PinkardO. Young adult children and grandchildren in primary caregiver roles to older relatives and their service needs. Fam Relat. 2000; 49(2):177–86.
16.
BakasT, PresslerSJ, JohnsonEA, et al.Family caregiving in heart failure. Nurs Res. 2006; 55(3):180–8.
17.
TremoladaM, BonichiniS, BassoG, PillonM. Perceived social support and health-related quality of life in AYA cancer survivors and controls. Psychooncology. 2016; 25(12):1408–17.
18.
ReblinM, UchinoBN. Social and emotional support and its implication for health. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2008; 21(2):201–5.
19.
ApplebaumAJ, SteinEM, Lord-BessenJ, et al.Optimism, social support, and mental health outcomes in patients with advanced cancer. Psychooncology. 2014; 23(3):299–306.
20.
OwnsworthT, HendersonL, ChambersSK. Social support buffers the impact of functional impairments on caregiver psychological well-being in the context of brain tumor and other cancers. Psychooncology. 2010; 19(10):1116–22.
21.
KahrimanF, ZaybakA. Caregiver burden and perceived social support among caregivers of patients with cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015; 16(8):3313–17.
22.
ShiehSC, TungHS, LiangSY. Social support as influencing primary family caregiver burden in Taiwanese patients with colorectal cancer. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2012; 44(3):223–31.
23.
NijboerC, TempelaarR, TriemstraM, et al.The role of social and psychologic resources in caregiving of cancer patients. Cancer. 2001; 91(5):1029–39.
NamGE, WarnerEL, MorreallDK, et al.Understanding psychological distress among pediatric cancer caregivers. Support Care Cancer. 2016; 24(7):3147–55.
26.
DugganM. The demographics of social media users. Washington, DC: Internet, Science & Tech PEW Research Center; 2015.
27.
Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Progress Review Group. Closing the gap: research and care imperatives for adolescents and young adults with cancer. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, LIVESTRONG Young Adult Alliance; 2006.
28.
KentEE, RowlandJH, NorthouseL, et al.Caring for caregivers and patients: research and clinical priorities for informal cancer caregiving. Cancer. 2016; 122(13):1987–95.
29.
KimSJ, MarschLA, BrunetteMF, DalleryJ. Harnessing Facebook for smoking reduction and cessation interventions: Facebook user engagement and social support predict smoking reduction. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(5):e168.
30.
HayesRA, CarrCT, WohnDY. It's the audience: differences in social support across social media. Social Media Society. 2016; 2(4):2056305116678894.
31.
LoweW. Yoshikoder: an open source multilingual content analysis tool for social scientists. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham: Methods and Data Institute; 2006.
32.
PennebakerJW, BoydRL, JordanK, BlackburnK. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin; 2015.
33.
SchwartzH, EichstaedtJ, DziurzynskiL, et al.Choosing the right words: characterizing and reducing error of the word count approach. Atlanta, GA: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2013.
34.
PennebakerJW, BoothRJ, BoydRL, FrancisME. Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015 operator's manual. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates; 2015.
35.
NgaiEWT, TaoSSC, MoonKKL. Social media research: theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. Int J Inf Manage. 2015; 35(1):33–44.
36.
WangYC, KrautRE, LevineJM. Eliciting and receiving online support: using computer-aided content analysis to examine the dynamics of online social support. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(4):e99.
37.
CapraraGV, CastellaniV, AlessandriG, et al.Being positive despite illness: the contribution of positivity to the quality of life of cancer patients. Psychol Health. 2016; 31(5):524–34.
38.
HodgesK, WinstanleyS. Effects of optimism, social support, fighting spirit, cancer worry and internal health locus of control on positive affect in cancer survivors: a path analysis. Stress Health. 2012; 28(5):408–15.
39.
LeungJ, AthertonI, KyleRG, et al.Psychological distress, optimism and general health in breast cancer survivors: a data linkage study using the Scottish Health Survey. Support Care Cancer. 2016; 24(4):1755–61.
40.
KimY, KashyDA, EvansTV. Age and attachment style impact stress and depressive symptoms among caregivers: a prospective investigation. J Cancer Surviv. 2007; 1(1):35–43.
41.
LitzelmanK, KentEE, RowlandJH. Social factors in informal cancer caregivers: the interrelationships among social stressors, relationship quality, and family functioning in the CanCORS data set. Cancer. 2016; 122(2):278–86.
42.
HeckelL, FennellKM, ReynoldsJ, et al.Unmet needs and depression among carers of people newly diagnosed with cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2015; 51(14):2049–57.
43.
RidingsCM, GefenD. Virtual community attraction: why people hang out online. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2004; 10(1).
44.
CrookB, GlowackiEM, LoveB, et al.Hanging by a thread: exploring the features of nonresponse in an online young adult cancer survivorship support community. J Cancer Surviv. 2016; 10(1):185–93.
45.
SealeC, ZieblandS, Charteris-BlackJ. Gender, cancer experience and internet use: a comparative keyword analysis of interviews and online cancer support groups. Soc Sci Med. 2006; 62(10):2577–90.
46.
BaloghEP, GanzPA, MurphySB, et al.Patient-centered cancer treatment planning: improving the quality of oncology care. Summary of an Institute of Medicine Workshop. Oncologist. 2011; 16(12):1800–5.
47.
LevineC, HuntGG, HalperD, et al.Young adult caregivers: a first look at an unstudied population. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95(11):2071–75.
48.
KeeganTHM, LichtensztajnDY, KatoI, et al.Unmet adolescent and young adult cancer survivors information and service needs: a population-based cancer registry study. J Cancer Surviv. 2012; 6(3):239–50.
