Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Information on Instagram: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is still an HIV epidemic in the United States, which is a substantial issue for populations bearing a disproportionate burden of HIV infections. Daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has proven to be safe and effective in reducing HIV acquisition risk. However, studies document that PrEP awareness/usage is low. There is also limited understanding of social media platforms, such as Instagram, as PrEP information sources. OBJECTIVE: Given the paucity of research on PrEP-related Instagram posts and popularity of this social media platform, the purpose of this research is to describe the source characteristics, image types, and textual contents of PrEP-related posts on Instagram. METHODS: Using Crowdtangle Search, a public insights tool owned/operated by Facebook, we retrieved publicly accessible and English-language-only Instagram posts for the 12-month period preceding April 22, 2020, using the following terms: Truvada or "pre-exposure prophylaxis" or #truvada or #truvadaprep or #truvadawhore or #truvadaforprep. We employed a qualitative coding methodology to manually extract information from posts. Using a pretested codebook, we performed content analysis on 250 posts, examining message and source characteristics (ie, organization type [eg, government, news] and individual type [eg, physician]), including information about PrEP (eg, how it works, cost), and indicated users. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for all categorical variables. A Chi-square test was conducted to determine differences between source types on a variety of message characteristics. RESULTS: Three-quarters of the posts (193/250, 77.2%) were posted by organizations. Of the 250 posts reviewed, approximately two-thirds (174/250, 69.6%) included a photograph, more than half (142/250, 56.8%) included an infographic, and approximately one-tenth (30/250, 12%) included a video. More than half defined PrEP (137/250, 54.8%), but fewer posts promoted PrEP use, explained how PrEP works, and included information on the effectiveness of PrEP or who can use it. The most commonly hashtagged populations among posts were men who have sex with men (MSM), but not necessarily bisexual men. Few posts contained race-/ethnicity-related hashtags (11/250, 4.4%). Fewer posts contained transgender-associated tags (eg, #transgirl; 5/250, 2%). No posts contained tags related to heterosexuals or injection drug users. We found statistical differences between source types (ie, individual versus organization). Specifically, posts from organizations more frequently contained information about who can use PrEP, whereas posts from individuals more frequently contained information describing adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to review Instagram for PrEP-related content, and it answers the National AIDS Strategy's call for a clearer articulation of the science surrounding HIV risk/prevention through better understanding of the current public information environment. This study offers a snapshot of how PrEP is being discussed (and by whom) on one of the most popular social media platforms and provides a foundation for developing and implementing PrEP promotion interventions on Instagram.

Evaluating Smart Assistant Responses for Accuracy and Misinformation Regarding Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Content Analysis Study.

BACKGROUND: Almost half (46%) of Americans have used a smart assistant of some kind (eg, Apple Siri), and 25% have used a stand-alone smart assistant (eg, Amazon Echo). This positions smart assistants as potentially useful modalities for retrieving health-related information; however, the accuracy of smart assistant responses lacks rigorous evaluation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the levels of accuracy, misinformation, and sentiment in smart assistant responses to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination-related questions. METHODS: We systematically examined responses to questions about the HPV vaccine from the following four most popular smart assistants: Apple Siri, Google Assistant, Amazon Alexa, and Microsoft Cortana. One team member posed 10 questions to each smart assistant and recorded all queries and responses. Two raters independently coded all responses (κ=0.85). We then assessed differences among the smart assistants in terms of response accuracy, presence of misinformation, and sentiment regarding the HPV vaccine. RESULTS: A total of 103 responses were obtained from the 10 questions posed across the smart assistants. Google Assistant data were excluded owing to nonresponse. Over half (n=63, 61%) of the responses of the remaining three smart assistants were accurate. We found statistically significant differences across the smart assistants (N=103, χ22=7.807, P=.02), with Cortana yielding the greatest proportion of misinformation. Siri yielded the greatest proportion of accurate responses (n=26, 72%), whereas Cortana yielded the lowest proportion of accurate responses (n=33, 54%). Most response sentiments across smart assistants were positive (n=65, 64%) or neutral (n=18, 18%), but Cortana's responses yielded the largest proportion of negative sentiment (n=7, 12%). CONCLUSIONS: Smart assistants appear to be average-quality sources for HPV vaccination information, with Alexa responding most reliably. Cortana returned the largest proportion of inaccurate responses, the most misinformation, and the greatest proportion of results with negative sentiments. More collaboration between technology companies and public health entities is necessary to improve the retrieval of accurate health information via smart assistants.