UCSF

Objective

To systematically appraise the content within oncology podcasts and the individuals who speak on them.

Design

A cross-sectional study.

Setting

We obtained a list of 33 current podcasts with substantial oncologic content through queries of predetermined search terms on the Apple Podcast Platform.

Participants

98 oncology-related podcast episodes.

Main outcomes

The perceived attitude of the episode with predetermined categories including "Neutral," "Favorable," or "Negative," the number of conflicts of interest verbally disclosed by individuals featured on oncology podcasts, and the prevalence of general payments among featured physicians.

Results

Among 33 oncology podcasts, the median number of episodes was 81 (IQR: 25-129). Ninety-seven percent (n = 32/33) of the podcasts included guests. The median episode run time was 26:50 min (IQR: 18:00 - 41:75). Among the 98 episodes assessed, 47% of episodes (n = 46/98) mentioned oncologic drugs, of which 57% (n = 26) had a neutral disposition, 37% (n = 17) had a favorable disposition and 7% (n = 3) were negative. Across 98 episodes, we identified 194 featured individuals, of which 65% (n = 126) had a medical degree (MD), and 85% (n = 107/126) of these physicians received at least one general payment. Further, 83% (n = 105/126) of physicians did not disclose payments.

Conclusions and policy summary

Within oncology-related podcasts, the majority of conversations about oncologic drugs are perceived as either favorable or neutral, and a majority of individuals featured on podcasts do not disclose conflicts of interest, highlighting potential opportunities for improvement, including the need for standardization of financial conflict of interest disclosure.