Literature DB >> 33605890

General Audience Engagement With Antismoking Public Health Messages Across Multiple Social Media Sites: Comparative Analysis.

Katja Reuter1,2, Melissa L Wilson3, Elsi M Kaiser4, Jennifer B Unger2, Meghan Moran5, NamQuyen Le6, Praveen Angyan6, Anuja Majmundar7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Public health organizations have begun to use social media to increase awareness of health harm and positively improve health behavior. Little is known about effective strategies to disseminate health education messages digitally and ultimately achieve optimal audience engagement.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the difference in audience engagement with identical antismoking health messages on three social media sites (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) and with a referring link to a tobacco prevention website cited in these messages. We hypothesized that health messages might not receive the same user engagement on these media, although these messages were identical and distributed at the same time.
METHODS: We measured the effect of health promotion messages on the risk of smoking among users of three social media sites (Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram) and disseminated 1275 health messages between April 19 and July 12, 2017 (85 days). The identical messages were distributed at the same time and as organic (unpaid) and advertised (paid) messages, each including a link to an educational website with more information about the topic. Outcome measures included message engagement (ie, the click-through rate [CTR] of the social media messages) and educational website engagement (ie, the CTR on the educational website [wCTR]). To analyze the data and model relationships, we used mixed effects negative binomial regression, z-statistic, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
RESULTS: Comparisons between social media sites showed that CTRs for identical antitobacco health messages differed significantly across social media (P<.001 for all). Instagram showed the statistically significant highest overall mean message engagement (CTR=0.0037; 95% CI 0.0032-0.0042), followed by Facebook (CTR=0.0026; 95% CI 0.0022-0.0030) and Twitter (CTR=0.0015; 95% CI 0.0013-0.0017). Facebook showed the highest as well as the lowest CTR for any individual message. However, the message CTR is not indicative of user engagement with the educational website content. Pairwise comparisons of the social media sites differed with respect to the wCTR (P<.001 for all). Messages on Twitter showed the lowest CTR, but they resulted in the highest level of website engagement (wCTR=0.6308; 95% CI 0.5640-0.6975), followed by Facebook (wCTR=0.2213; 95% CI 0.1932-0.2495) and Instagram (wCTR=0.0334; 95% CI 0.0230-0.0438). We found a statistically significant higher CTR for organic (unpaid) messages (CTR=0.0074; 95% CI 0.0047-0.0100) compared with paid advertisements (CTR=0.0022; 95% CI 0.0017-0.0027; P<.001 and P<.001, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence-based insights to guide the design of health promotion efforts on social media. Future studies should examine the platform-specific impact of psycholinguistic message variations on user engagement, include newer sites such as Snapchat and TikTok, and study the correlation between web-based behavior and real-world health behavior change. The need is urgent in light of increased health-related marketing and misinformation on social media. ©Katja Reuter, Melissa L Wilson, Meghan Moran, NamQuyen Le, Praveen Angyan, Anuja Majmundar, Elsi M Kaiser, Jennifer B Unger. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (http://publichealth.jmir.org), 19.02.2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Facebook; Instagram; Twitter; affordance; digital; dissemination of science; health communication; health promotion; online; smoking; social media; tobacco; user engagement

Year:  2021        PMID: 33605890      PMCID: PMC7935649          DOI: 10.2196/24429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JMIR Public Health Surveill        ISSN: 2369-2960


  34 in total

1.  Pictures Speak Louder than Words: Motivations for Using Instagram.

Authors:  Eunji Lee; Jung-Ah Lee; Jang Ho Moon; Yongjun Sung
Journal:  Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw       Date:  2015-09

2.  Vaccination Discussion among Parents on Social Media: A Content Analysis of Comments on Parenting Blogs.

Authors:  Marina C Jenkins; Megan A Moreno
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2020-03-10

3.  Characterizing HPV Vaccine Sentiments and Content on Instagram.

Authors:  Matthew D Kearney; Preethi Selvan; Michael K Hauer; Amy E Leader; Philip M Massey
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2019-12

4.  Facebook Recruitment of Young Adult Smokers for a Cessation Trial: Methods, Metrics, and Lessons Learned.

Authors:  Danielle E Ramo; Theresa M S Rodriguez; Kathryn Chavez; Markus J Sommer; Judith J Prochaska
Journal:  Internet Interv       Date:  2014-04

5.  Vaporous Marketing: Uncovering Pervasive Electronic Cigarette Advertisements on Twitter.

Authors:  Eric M Clark; Chris A Jones; Jake Ryland Williams; Allison N Kurti; Mitchell Craig Norotsky; Christopher M Danforth; Peter Sheridan Dodds
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A picture is worth a thousand words: Electronic cigarette content on Instagram and Pinterest.

Authors:  Alexander S Lee; Joy L Hart; Clara G Sears; Kandi L Walker; Allison Siu; Courteney Smith
Journal:  Tob Prev Cessat       Date:  2017-07-03

7.  Tweet for Behavior Change: Using Social Media for the Dissemination of Public Health Messages.

Authors:  Aisling Gough; Ruth F Hunter; Oluwaseun Ajao; Anna Jurek; Gary McKeown; Jun Hong; Eimear Barrett; Marbeth Ferguson; Gerry McElwee; Miriam McCarthy; Frank Kee
Journal:  JMIR Public Health Surveill       Date:  2017-03-23

8.  A cross-sectional examination of marketing of electronic cigarettes on Twitter.

Authors:  Jidong Huang; Rachel Kornfield; Glen Szczypka; Sherry L Emery
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 7.552

9.  Social Media in Public Health: Strategies to Distill, Package, and Disseminate Public Health Research.

Authors:  Johanzynn Gatewood; Sheryl L Monks; Camelia R Singletary; Elena Vidrascu; Justin B Moore
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  2020 Sep/Oct

10.  How to fight an infodemic.

Authors:  John Zarocostas
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2020-02-29       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  3 in total

1.  Tobacco and cannabis use advertisements targeting adolescents and young adults on Snapchat in 2019.

Authors:  Anuja Majmundar; Maya Chu; Cindy Perez; Yannie Hoang; Jared Yuan; Jennifer B Unger; Jon-Patrick Allem
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-03-08

2.  Age Differences in Preferred Methods of Obtaining and Understanding Health Related Information During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia.

Authors:  Nathan Williams; Terry Haines; Cylie Williams; Kelly-Ann Bowles; Keith D Hill
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-07-13

Review 3.  Evaluating the Effectiveness of Internet-Based Communication for Public Health: Systematic Review.

Authors:  Elisabetta Ceretti; Loredana Covolo; Francesca Cappellini; Alberto Nanni; Sara Sorosina; Andrea Beatini; Mirella Taranto; Arianna Gasparini; Paola De Castro; Silvio Brusaferro; Umberto Gelatti
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 7.076

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.