ArticleBMC public health2022
The choice of message and messenger to drive behavior change that averts the health impacts of wildfires: an online randomized controlled experiment.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Wildfire and Smoke Risk Communication: A Systematic Literature Review from a Health Equity Focus.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Caregiver experiences and perceptions of childhood vaccination information and messaging - a qualitative study in the urban informal settlements of Nairobi, Kenya.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo reduce the negative health effects from wildfire smoke exposure, effective risk and health communication strategies are vital. We estimated the behavioral effects from changes in message framing and messenger in public health messages about wildfire smoke on Facebook.
methodsDuring September and October 2021, we conducted a preregistered online randomized controlled experiment in Facebook. Adult Facebook users (n = 1,838,100), living in nine wildfire-prone Western U.S. states, were randomly assigned to see one of two ad versions (narrative frame vs. informational frame) from one of two messengers (government vs. academic). We estimated the effects of narrative framing, the messenger, and their interactions on ad click-through rates, a measure of recipient information-seeking behavior.
resultsNarrative frame increased click-through rates by 25.3% (95% CI = 22.2, 28.4%), with larger estimated effects among males, recipients in areas with less frequent exposure to heavy wildfire smoke, and in areas where predominant political party affiliation of registered voters was Republican (although not statistically different from predominantly-Democrat areas). The estimated effect from an academic messenger compared to a government messenger was small and statistically nonsignificant (2.2%; 95% CI = - 0.3, 4.7%). The estimated interaction effect between the narrative framing and the academic messenger was also small and statistically nonsignificant (3.9%; 95% CI = - 1.1, 9.1%).
conclusionsTraditional public service announcements rely heavily on communicating facts (informational framing). Shifting from a fact-focused, informational framing to a story-focused, narrative framing could lead to more effective health communication in areas at risk of wildfires and in public health contexts more broadly.
trial registrationDate registered: August 19, 2021; Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JMWUF.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.