Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32348272›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2020

Review of Evaluation Metrics Used in Digital and Traditional Tobacco Control Campaigns.

Lilian Chan, Blythe O'Hara, Philayrath Phongsavan, Adrian Bauman, Becky Freeman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Community engagement through social media: A promising low-cost strategy for rural recruitment?The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Lilian ChanSydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, Prevention Research Collaboration, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7284-477X
Blythe O'HaraSydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, Prevention Research Collaboration, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9984-0656
Philayrath PhongsavanSydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, Prevention Research Collaboration, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2460-5031
Adrian BaumanSydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, Prevention Research Collaboration, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0369-4621
Becky FreemanSydney School of Public Health and Charles Perkins Centre, Prevention Research Collaboration, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2082-9612

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMass media campaigns for public health are increasingly using digital media platforms, such as web-based advertising and social media; however, there is a lack of evidence on how to best use these digital platforms for public health campaigns. To generate this evidence, appropriate campaign evaluations are needed, but with the proliferation of digital media-related metrics, there is no clear consensus on which evaluation metrics should be used. Public health campaigns are diverse in nature, so to facilitate analysis, this review has selected tobacco control campaigns as the scope of the study.

objectiveThis literature review aimed to examine how tobacco control campaigns that use traditional and digital media platforms have been evaluated.

methodsMedicine and science databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online [MEDLINE], EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], and Scopus), and a marketing case study database (World Advertising Research Center) were searched for articles published between 2013 and 2018. Two authors established the eligibility criteria and reviewed articles for inclusion. Individual campaigns were identified from the articles, and information on campaigns and their evaluations were supplemented with searches on Google, Google Scholar, and social media platforms. Data about campaign evaluations were tabulated and mapped to a conceptual framework.

resultsIn total, 17 campaigns were included in this review, with evaluations reported on by 51 articles, 17 marketing reports, and 4 grey literature reports. Most campaigns were from English-speaking countries, with behavioral change as the primary objective. In the process evaluations, a wide range of metrics were used to assess the reach of digital campaign activities, making comparison between campaigns difficult. Every campaign in the review, except one, reported some type of engagement impact measure, with website visits being the most commonly reported metric (11 of the 17 campaigns). Other commonly reported evaluation measures identified in this review include engagement on social media, changes in attitudes, and number of people contacting smoking cessation services. Of note, only 7 of the 17 campaigns attempted to measure media platform attribution, for example, by asking participants where they recalled seeing the campaign or using unique website tracking codes for ads on different media platforms.

conclusionsOne of the key findings of this review is the numerous and diverse range of measures and metrics used in tobacco control campaign evaluations. To address this issue, we propose principles to guide the selection of digital media-related metrics for campaign evaluations, and also outline a conceptual framework to provide a coherent organization to the diverse range of metrics. Future research is needed to specifically investigate whether engagement metrics are associated with desired campaign outcomes, to determine whether reporting of engagement metrics is meaningful in campaign evaluations.

Indexed as

HumansSocial MediaTobacco Industryevaluation studies as topicinternetmass mediapublic healthsmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID32348272
PMCPMC7448186

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.