Evaluating the Effectiveness of Internet-Based Communication for Public Health: Systematic Review

Abstract

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.

A Model of Social Media Effects in Public Health Communication Campaigns: Systematic Review

“…Our model reflects the current assumption that engagement with the campaign is the focal point, with all outcomes dependent on generating engagement. Others have also noted how frequently engagement is reported in evaluations [ 118 ], and determining what content generates engagement is a frequent subject of research [ 119 , 120 ]. When considered alongside our findings, this suggests that engagement is sometimes seen as the ultimate goal of campaigns rather than an intermediate step to achieving health outcomes.…”

Impact of strategies to mitigate misinformation in diverse settings and populations: a protocol for a living evidence synthesis

“…16 Governments have employed a variety of strategies designed to debunk misinformation, including monitoring and fact-checking, economic incentives and legislative policies. [17][18][19][20] These strategies must be assessed and compared in terms of impacts and effects on health outcomes and behaviour change. For instance, one older evidence synthesis found that correcting misinformation has a moderate influence on belief in misinformation, rebuttals are more effective than forewarnings and appeals to coherence are more effective than factchecking and appeals to credibility.…”