Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28336503›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2017

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

Aisling Gough, Ruth F Hunter, Oluwaseun Ajao, Anna Jurek, Gary McKeown, Jun Hong, Eimear Barrett, Marbeth Ferguson, Gerry McElwee, Miriam McCarthy and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 119 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
119citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
20.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

119 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 271 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

59 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Aisling GoughUKCRC Centre of Excellence in Public Health Northern Ireland, School of Medicine, Dentistry & Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4201-7316
Ruth F HunterUKCRC Centre of Excellence in Public Health Northern Ireland, School of Medicine, Dentistry & Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7315-0382
Oluwaseun AjaoSchool of Electronics, Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6606-6569
Anna JurekSchool of Electronics, Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7435-9134
Gary McKeownSchool of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7517-641X
Jun HongSchool of Electronics, Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7816-4107
Eimear BarrettUKCRC Centre of Excellence in Public Health Northern Ireland, School of Medicine, Dentistry & Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5604-7874
Marbeth FergusonCancer Focus Northern Ireland, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6281-4761
Gerry McElweeCancer Focus Northern Ireland, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2024-2472
Miriam McCarthyPublic Health Agency Northern Ireland, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8152-1681
Frank KeeUKCRC Centre of Excellence in Public Health Northern Ireland, School of Medicine, Dentistry & Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0606-8167
Queen's University Belfast · GBCancer Focus Northern Ireland · GBPublic Health Agency · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M026299/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial media public health campaigns have the advantage of tailored messaging at low cost and large reach, but little is known about what would determine their feasibility as tools for inducing attitude and behavior change.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to test the feasibility of designing, implementing, and evaluating a social media-enabled intervention for skin cancer prevention.

methodsA quasi-experimental feasibility study used social media (Twitter) to disseminate different message "frames" related to care in the sun and cancer prevention. Phase 1 utilized the Northern Ireland cancer charity's Twitter platform (May 1 to July 14, 2015). Following a 2-week "washout" period, Phase 2 commenced (August 1 to September 30, 2015) using a bespoke Twitter platform. Phase 2 also included a Thunderclap, whereby users allowed their social media accounts to automatically post a bespoke message on their behalf. Message frames were categorized into 5 broad categories: humor, shock or disgust, informative, personal stories, and opportunistic. Seed users with a notable following were contacted to be "influencers" in retweeting campaign content. A pre- and postintervention Web-based survey recorded skin cancer prevention knowledge and attitudes in Northern Ireland (population 1.8 million).

resultsThere were a total of 417,678 tweet impressions, 11,213 engagements, and 1211 retweets related to our campaign. Shocking messages generated the greatest impressions (shock, n=2369; informative, n=2258; humorous, n=1458; story, n=1680), whereas humorous messages generated greater engagement (humorous, n=148; shock, n=147; story, n=117; informative, n=100) and greater engagement rates compared with story tweets. Informative messages, resulted in the greatest number of shares (informative, n=17; humorous, n=10; shock, n=9; story, n=7). The study findings included improved knowledge of skin cancer severity in a pre- and postintervention Web-based survey, with greater awareness that skin cancer is the most common form of cancer (preintervention: 28.4% [95/335] vs postintervention: 39.3% [168/428] answered "True") and that melanoma is most serious (49.1% [165/336] vs 55.5% [238/429]). The results also show improved attitudes toward ultraviolet (UV) exposure and skin cancer with a reduction in agreement that respondents "like to tan" (60.5% [202/334] vs 55.6% [238/428]).

conclusionsSocial media-disseminated public health messages reached more than 23% of the Northern Ireland population. A Web-based survey suggested that the campaign might have contributed to improved knowledge and attitudes toward skin cancer among the target population. Findings suggested that shocking and humorous messages generated greatest impressions and engagement, but information-based messages were likely to be shared most. The extent of behavioral change as a result of the campaign remains to be explored, however, the change of attitudes and knowledge is promising. Social media is an inexpensive, effective method for delivering public health messages. However, existing and traditional process evaluation methods may not be suitable for social media.

Indexed as

awarenessbehavior changecommunicationpublic heathskin cancersocial mediaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID28336503
PMCPMC5383801
OpenAlexW2602575848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.