The affordances of social media both constrain and enable new forms of political advocacy. The present study identifies four forms of networked advocacy and analyses these with emphasis on constituencies, platforms, activities, and aims. Based on over 40 semistructured elite interviews with interest group leaders and heads of communication, it first finds that interviewees distinguish between social media platforms, tailoring content and genre, to target intended audiences. Second, it finds that social media affordances make awareness‐raising and community‐building more efficient and purposeful for all groups. At the same time, only large organizations with bigger budgets, credibility, technical knowhow, and political relations, systematically engage in networked mobilization and lobbying. Third, interviewees representing these resourceful organizations underline that Twitter represents a new efficient form of middle‐stage lobbying. The study contributes empirical insights into the aims and strategies behind networked advocacy among different groups within one policy field in a local, non‐American context. Theoretically, it combines insights from networked media logics, social affordances, and interest group advocacy to conceptualize how networked media can afford a new form of lobbying conducted as real‐time, semi‐private direct communication with decision makers.

ObjectivesTo investigate public perspectives on brain health.DesignCross-sectional multilanguage online survey.SettingLifebrain posted the survey on its website and social media and shared it with stakeholders. The survey was open from 4 June 2019 to 31 August 2020.Participantsn=27 590 aged ≥18 years from 81 countries in five continents completed the survey. The respondents were predominantly women (71%), middle aged (41–60 years; 37%) or above (>60 years; 46%), highly educated (69%) and resided in Europe (98%).Main outcome measuresRespondents’ views were assessed regarding factors that may influence brain health, life periods considered important to look after the brain and diseases and disorders associated with the brain. We run exploratory linear models at a 99% level of significance to assess correlates of the outcome variables, adjusting for likely confounders in a targeted fashion.ResultsOf all significant effects, the respondents recognised the impact of lifestyle factors on brain health but had relatively less awareness of the role socioeconomic factors might play. Most respondents rated all life periods as important for the brain (95%–96%), although the prenatal period was ranked significantly lower (84%). Equally, women and highly educated respondents more often rated factors and life periods to be important for brain health. Ninety-nine per cent of respondents associated Alzheimer’s disease and dementia with the brain. The respondents made a connection between mental health and the brain, and mental disorders such as schizophrenia and depression were significantly more often considered to be associated with the brain than neurological disorders such as stroke and Parkinson’s disease. Few respondents (<32%) associated cancer, hypertension, diabetes and arthritis with the brain.ConclusionsDifferences in perceptions of brain health were noted among specific segments of the population. Policies providing information about brain-friendly health behaviours and targeting people less likely to have relevant experience may be needed.

The media are central arenas for actors challenging government practice, as those who succeed in publicly defining issues can influence public perceptions and policy outcomes. Taking into account the widespread civic participation in health media coverage, this study explores actor influence on the media framing of a contentious health policy issue, before and after a policy change. By means of media texts analysis, it analyses the relation between actor frames and the dominant media frames on the issue of priority setting of innovative pharmaceuticals. While confirming that actors vary in their ability to influence the media, the findings contend traditional conceptions that representation equates media influence and shed light on factors that affect frame influence.

Brain health entails mental wellbeing and cognitive health in the absence of brain disorders. The past decade has seen an explosion of tests, cognitive and biological, to predict various brain conditions, such as Alzheimer's Disease. In line with these current developments, we investigated people's willingness and reasons to—or not to—take a hypothetical brain health test to learn about risk of developing a brain disease, in a cross-sectional multilanguage online survey. The survey was part of the Global Brain Health Survey, open to the public from 4th June 2019 to 31st August 2020. Respondents were largely recruited via European brain councils and research organizations. 27,590 people responded aged 18 years or older and were predominantly women (71%), middle-aged or older (&gt;40 years; 83%), and highly educated (69%). Responses were analyzed to explore the relationship between demographic variables and responses.ResultsWe found high public interest in brain health testing: over 91% would definitely or probably take a brain health test and 86% would do so even if it gave information about a disease that cannot be treated or prevented. The main reason for taking a test was the ability to respond if one was found to be at risk of brain disease, such as changing lifestyle, seeking counseling or starting treatment. Higher interest in brain health testing was found in men, respondents with lower education levels and those with poor self-reported cognitive health.ConclusionHigh public interest in brain health and brain health testing in certain segments of society, coupled with an increase of commercial tests entering the market, is likely to put pressure on public health systems to inform the public about brain health testing in years to come.

Interest groups depend on visibility for political influence and organizational growth. The current hybrid media landscape presents both opportunities and constraints for visibility and influence. For organized interests, if, when and how to use established media involves a continuous evaluation of different media strategies, as well as evaluations of how to best combine media and non-media platforms for efficient, multi-platform advocacy campaigns. Through qualitative interviews with 39 health interest organizations, representing a broad spectrum of group types, resources and access to decision-makers, this study analyses evaluations of the perceived gains and risks associated with media strategies. Although all interviewees value media visibility, their actual access to the established news media varies significantly. In the current media landscape, which is characterized by hyper-competition and hybridity, we find that it is primarily the well-resourced organizations, with storytelling expertise, which gain and prioritize visibility in the established media. Other organizations, independent of other group characteristics, seek visibility by increasingly becoming networked content distributors to bypass established media and target specific publics to promote organizational aims.

No abstract