JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Social media advertising products may enable the targeted advertising of scientifically unsupported medical interventions. Anecdotal evidence indicates cancer patients may be targeted by alternative cancer treatment advertisements on social media, but the extent and nature of targeted advertising remain unknown. Alternative cancer treatment is associated with a greater risk of death than cancer patients undergoing supported treatments. The current context suggests an urgent need to investigate alternative cancer treatment advertising on social media.

Objective:

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) if alternative cancer treatment paid advertising occurs on Meta social media platforms; (2) identify 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.

Methods:

From December 6, 2021, to December 12, 2021, we collected advertisements from alternative cancer clinics using the Meta Ads 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 benefits of their services and evaluated how alternative cancer providers portrayed alternative cancer treatment efficacy.

Results:

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, 39.0%); (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%). 25.8% of advertisements included a direct statement claiming provider treatment can cure cancer or prolong life.

Conclusions:

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 emulated evidence-based medical providers and created the impression the offered treatments were legitimate medical options for their 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, 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.