| Literature DB >> 31682589 |
Lindsey N Horrell1, Allison J Lazard2,3, Amrita Bhowmick1,4, Sara Hayes4, Susan Mees4, Carmina G Valle3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With growing numbers of adults turning to the internet to get answers for health-related questions, online communities provide platforms with participatory networks to deliver health information and social support. However, to optimize the benefits of these online communities, these platforms must market effectively to attract new members and promote community growth.Entities:
Keywords: health communication; health education; health promotion; internet; social media
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31682589 PMCID: PMC6861997 DOI: 10.2196/14421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 5.428
Figure 1Facebook advertisement campaign images and text.
Facebook advertisement performance measures.
| Level of performance | Level of engagement | Performance measure | Definition |
| Exposure | —a | Impressions | Number of times the advertisement appeared in News Feeds |
| Exposure | — | Reach | Number of individuals exposed to the Facebook advertisement |
| Engagement | Low | Reactions | Number of times people responded to an advertisement by clicking “like,” “love,” “wow,” “haha,” “sad,” or “angry” |
| Engagement | Low | Link clicks | Number of people who clicked a link on the Facebook advertisement |
| Engagement | Low | Page likes | Number of people who liked the LungCancer.net Facebook page |
| Engagement | Medium | Shares | Number of times people shared the advertisement |
| Engagement | Medium | Comments | Number of times people commented on the Facebook advertisement |
| Engagement | High | Opt ins | Number of people who signed up to join the LungCancer.net community |
aNot applicable.
Demographic information of those exposed to Facebook advertisements.
| Age (years) | Cumulative campaign reach (N=91,835), n (%) | New members resulting from the campaign (N=863), n (%) | ||||
|
| Female | Male | Unknown | Female | Male | Unknown |
| 65+ | 24,005 (26.14) | 5766 (6.28) | 163 (0.18) | 307 (35.57) | 66 (7.65) | 3 (0.35) |
| 55-64 | 31,401 (34.29) | 6572 (7.16) | 181 (0.20) | 257 (29.78) | 63 (7.30) | 3 (0.35) |
| 45-54 | 13,289 (14.47) | 2397 (2.61) | 62 (0.07) | 111 (12.86) | 14 (1.62) | 0 (0.00) |
| 35-44 | 4427 (4.82) | 975 (1.06) | 20 (0.02) | 23 (2.67) | 1 (0.12) | 0 (0.00) |
| 25-34 | 138 (1.50) | 404 (0.44) | 12 (0.01) | 7 (0.81) | 2 (0.23) | 0 (0.00) |
| 18-24 | 591 (0.64) | 115 (0.13) | 15 (0.01) | 6 (0.70) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) |
| Unknown | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 69 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) |
Facebook advertisement engagement results.
| Ad | Exposure, n | Engagement, n | Cost/opt in rate (US $) | ||||||
| Reach | Impressions | Low | Medium | High (opt ins) | |||||
|
|
| Reactions | Link clicks | Page likes | Shares | Comments |
| ||
| A | 7206 | 8972 | 83 | 81 | 6 | 16 | 9 | 34 | 5.10 |
| Ba | 10,556 | 12,569 | 221 | 131 | 11 | 44 | 6 | 81 | 1.99 |
| C | 8494 | 10,788 | 219 | 102 | 10 | 51 | 8 | 72 | 2.23 |
| Ba | 10,546 | 12,965 | 170 | 164 | 9 | 34 | 15 | 78 | 1.85 |
| C | 9326 | 11,944 | 173 | 113 | 10 | 37 | 13 | 55 | 2.64 |
| D | 6484 | 9235 | 238 | 121 | 10 | 35 | 8 | 61 | 1.86 |
| B | 6078 | 8091 | 94 | 116 | 3 | 35 | 13 | 48 | 1.89 |
| E | 4018 | 6293 | 195 | 126 | 10 | 22 | 5 | 60 | 1.51 |
| Fa | 4778 | 7262 | 194 | 176 | 9 | 26 | 19 | 82 | 1.10 |
| F | 4711 | 6313 | 151 | 134 | 10 | 33 | 11 | 60 | 1.73 |
| G | 3468 | 4530 | 141 | 75 | 7 | 23 | 5 | 35 | 2.53 |
| Ha | 3952 | 5519 | 179 | 138 | 14 | 31 | 9 | 60 | 1.47 |
| H | 4671 | 5987 | 189 | 110 | 14 | 25 | 13 | 43 | 2.45 |
| Ia | 4146 | 5472 | 171 | 114 | 22 | 23 | 8 | 50 | 1.89 |
| J | 3401 | 5067 | 184 | 88 | 4 | 17 | 15 | 44 | 2.12 |
| Total | 91,835 | 121,007 | 2602 | 1789 | 149 | 452 | 157 | 863 | 2.02 |
aSignals the highest performing ad (generated the most opt ins/cost) that was subsequently used in the next ad campaign.