Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health. Section of Public Health and Human Sciences. University of Brescia, Italy
Dr. Loredana Covolo
Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health. Section of Public Health and Human Sciences. University of Brescia, Italy
Background: The suspension of compulsory scheduling of some pediatric vaccines has been discussed for a long time by health authorities in Italy but the current decrease of vaccination rates is a matter of concern. YouTube is the most popular video-based social media website. Considering the demonstrated impact of internet on vaccination decision-making and the increasing use of social media to share and disseminate health information, the aim of this study was to explore the message available on YouTube videos about vaccination. Methods: An observational study was conducted searching for YouTube videos in September 2015 and updated in January 2016, by using the keyword “vaccinations.” We included recently posted videos in Italian on child vaccination (2014–2015). Videos were classified according to the message tone. Results: A total of 123 videos were selected. Pro-vaccination videos were 62 (50%), anti-vaccination 28 (23%), neutral or without a clear position in favor or against vaccination 33 (27%). Focusing on the first 2 groups, pro-vaccination videos had a higher number of views compared with those unfavorable (1602 ± 6544 vs 1482 ± 2735) (p < 0.001). However, anti-vaccination videos were liked more by viewers (17.8 ± 31.3) than positive ones (13.2 ± 44.7) (p < 0.001) in addition to being more shared (23 ± 22.6 vs 3.8 ± 5.5, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Most of the videos were positive in tone, but those that disapproved of immunization were the most liked and shared. Considering the growing number of viewers, it is important to monitor the web to understand audience characteristics and what influences public opinions to use communication strategies more effectively.
1 December 2017 in Patient Education and Counseling
Background: Communicating strategically is a key issue for health organizations. Over the past decade, health care communication via social media and websites has generated a great deal of studies examining different realities of communication strategies. However, when it comes to systematic reviews, there is fragmentary evidence on this type of communication. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on web institutional health communication for public health authorities to evaluate possible aim-specific key points based on these existing studies. Methods: Guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, we conducted a comprehensive review across 2 electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) from January 1, 2011, to October 7, 2021, searching for studies investigating institutional health communication. In total, 2 independent researchers (AN and SS) reviewed the articles for inclusion, and the assessment of methodological quality was based on the Kmet appraisal checklist. Results: A total of 78 articles were selected. Most studies (35/78, 45%) targeted health promotion and disease prevention, followed by crisis communication (24/78, 31%), general health (13/78, 17%), and misinformation correction and health promotion (6/78, 8%). Engagement and message framing were the most analyzed aspects. Few studies (14/78, 18%) focused on campaign effectiveness. Only 23% (18/78) of the studies had an experimental design. The Kmet evaluation was used to distinguish studies presenting a solid structure from lacking studies. In particular, considering the 0.75-point threshold, 36% (28/78) of the studies were excluded. Studies above this threshold were used to identify a series of aim-specific and medium-specific suggestions as the communication strategies used differed greatly. Conclusions: Overall, the findings suggest that no single strategy works best in the case of web-based health care communication. The extreme variability of outcomes and the lack of a unitary measure for assessing the end points of a specific campaign or study lead us to reconsider the tools we use to evaluate the efficacy of web-based health communication.