Protecting, promoting, and supporting breastfeeding on Instagram.

Breastfeeding has many established benefits for mothers, children, and society at large; however, the vast majority of infants globally do not meet international breastfeeding recommendations. There are many complex reasons for suboptimal breastfeeding rates, including social and societal factors. Alongside increasing social media use worldwide, there is an expanding research focus on how social media use affects health behaviours, decisions and perceptions. The objective of this study was to systematically determine if and how breastfeeding is promoted and supported on the popular social media platform Instagram, which currently has over 700 million active users worldwide. To assess how Instagram is used to depict and portray breastfeeding, and how users share perspectives and information about this topic, we analysed 4,089 images and 8,331 corresponding comments posted with popular breastfeeding-related hashtags (#breastfeeding, #breastmilk, #breastisbest, and #normalizebreastfeeding). We found that Instagram is being mobilized by users to publicly display and share diverse breastfeeding-related content and to create supportive networks that allow new mothers to share experiences, build confidence, and address challenges related to breastfeeding. Discussions were overwhelmingly positive and often highly personal, with virtually no antagonistic content. Very little educational content was found, contrasted by frequent depiction and discussion of commercial products. Thus, Instagram is currently used by breastfeeding mothers to create supportive networks and could potentially offer new avenues and opportunities to "normalize," protect, promote, and support breastfeeding more broadly across its large and diverse global online community.

Representing a "revolution": how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the portrayal of "personalized" and "precision" medicine (PM) in North American news over the past decade. Content analysis of print and online news was conducted to determine how PM has been defined and to identify the frames used to discuss PM, including associated topics, benefits, and concerns. METHODS: A data set was built using the FACTIVA database, searching for popular North American publications with the terms "personalized (personalised) medicine" and/or "precision medicine" from 1 January 2005 to 15 March 2016. The final set of publications totaled 774. RESULTS: PM is almost exclusively defined as related to genetics and is often part of a story related to cancer. The PM story is overwhelmingly one of highlighting (potential) benefits and optimism, especially in shorter publications, and ones where PM is not the main focus. This promotional PM discourse has remained fairly consistent over the past decade. CONCLUSION: The numerous concerns associated with PM have received little attention over the past decade, especially in articles more likely to be encountered by a more general audience. This promotion of PM serves as an example of the science hyping that takes place in science reportage and may have implications for consumers, public expectations, and related health policy.

Is belief larger than fact: expectations, optimism and reality for translational stem cell research.

BACKGROUND: Stem cell (SC) therapies hold remarkable promise for many diseases, but there is a significant gulf between public expectations and the reality of progress toward clinical application. Public expectations are fueled by stakeholder arguments for research and public funding, coupled with intense media coverage in an ethically charged arena. We examine media representations in light of the expanding global landscape of SC clinical trials, asking what patients may realistically expect by way of timelines for the therapeutic and curative potential of regenerative medicine? METHODS: We built 2 international datasets: (1) 3,404 clinical trials (CT) containing 'stem cell*' from ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Search Portal; and (2) 13,249 newspaper articles on SC therapies using Factiva.com. We compared word frequencies between the CT descriptions and full-text newspaper articles for the number containing terms for SC type and diseases/conditions. We also developed inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify novel SC CTs, mainly regenerative medicine applications. RESULTS: Newspaper articles focused on human embryonic SCs and neurological conditions with significant coverage as well of cardiovascular disease and diabetes. In contrast, CTs used primarily hematopoietic SCs, with an increase in CTs using mesenchymal SCs since 2007. The latter dominated our novel classification for CTs, most of which are in phases I and II. From the perspective of the public, expecting therapies for neurological conditions, there is limited activity in what may be considered novel applications of SC therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Given the research, regulatory, and commercialization hurdles to the clinical translation of SC research, it seems likely that patients and political supporters will become disappointed and disillusioned. In this environment, proponents need to make a concerted effort to temper claims. Even though the field is highly promising, it lacks significant private investment and is largely reliant on public support, requiring a more honest acknowledgement of the expected therapeutic benefits and the timelines to achieving them.