Empathic Engagement With the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitant in Private Facebook Groups: A Randomized Trial.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Health Education & Behavior Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-30 DOI:10.1177/10901981231188313
Lorien C Abroms, Donald Koban, Nandita Krishnan, Melissa Napolitano, Samuel Simmens, Brendan Caskey, Tien-Chin Wu, David A Broniatowski
{"title":"Empathic Engagement With the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitant in Private Facebook Groups: A Randomized Trial.","authors":"Lorien C Abroms, Donald Koban, Nandita Krishnan, Melissa Napolitano, Samuel Simmens, Brendan Caskey, Tien-Chin Wu, David A Broniatowski","doi":"10.1177/10901981231188313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vaccine misinformation has been widely spread on social media, but attempts to combat it have not taken advantage of the attributes of social media platforms for health education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The objective was to test the efficacy of moderated social media discussions about COVID-19 vaccines in private Facebook groups. Unvaccinated U.S. adults were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk and randomized. In the intervention group, moderators posted two informational posts per day for 4 weeks and engaged in relationship-building interactions with group members. In the control group, participants received a referral to Facebook's COVID-19 Information Center. Follow-up surveys with participants (<i>N</i> = 478) were conducted 6 weeks post-enrollment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 6 weeks follow-up, no differences were found in vaccination rates. Intervention participants were more likely to show improvements in their COVID-19 vaccination intentions (vs. stay same or decline) compared with control (<i>p</i> = .03). They also improved more in their intentions to encourage others to vaccinate for COVID-19. There were no differences in COVID-19 vaccine confidence or intentions between groups. General vaccine and responsibility to vaccinate were higher in the intervention compared with control. Most participants in the intervention group reported high levels of satisfaction. Participants engaged with content (e.g., commented, reacted) 11.8 times on average over the course of 4 weeks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Engaging with vaccine-hesitant individuals in private Facebook groups improved some COVID-19 vaccine-related beliefs and represents a promising strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12974,"journal":{"name":"Health Education & Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"10-20"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Education & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981231188313","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vaccine misinformation has been widely spread on social media, but attempts to combat it have not taken advantage of the attributes of social media platforms for health education.

Methods: The objective was to test the efficacy of moderated social media discussions about COVID-19 vaccines in private Facebook groups. Unvaccinated U.S. adults were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk and randomized. In the intervention group, moderators posted two informational posts per day for 4 weeks and engaged in relationship-building interactions with group members. In the control group, participants received a referral to Facebook's COVID-19 Information Center. Follow-up surveys with participants (N = 478) were conducted 6 weeks post-enrollment.

Results: At 6 weeks follow-up, no differences were found in vaccination rates. Intervention participants were more likely to show improvements in their COVID-19 vaccination intentions (vs. stay same or decline) compared with control (p = .03). They also improved more in their intentions to encourage others to vaccinate for COVID-19. There were no differences in COVID-19 vaccine confidence or intentions between groups. General vaccine and responsibility to vaccinate were higher in the intervention compared with control. Most participants in the intervention group reported high levels of satisfaction. Participants engaged with content (e.g., commented, reacted) 11.8 times on average over the course of 4 weeks.

Conclusions: Engaging with vaccine-hesitant individuals in private Facebook groups improved some COVID-19 vaccine-related beliefs and represents a promising strategy.

在 Facebook 私人群组中与 COVID-19 疫苗犹豫者进行移情互动:随机试验
背景:疫苗误导信息已在社交媒体上广泛传播,但打击误导信息的尝试并未利用社交媒体平台在健康教育方面的特性:方法:目的是测试在私人 Facebook 群组中对有关 COVID-19 疫苗的社交媒体讨论进行调节的效果。未接种疫苗的美国成年人通过亚马逊的 Mechanical Turk 进行招募,并进行随机分组。在干预组中,主持人每天发布两条信息帖子,持续 4 周,并与小组成员进行关系建设互动。在对照组中,参与者会收到 Facebook COVID-19 信息中心的转介。对参与者(478 人)进行了注册后 6 周的跟踪调查:结果:在 6 周的随访中,疫苗接种率没有发现差异。与对照组相比,干预组参与者的 COVID-19 疫苗接种意愿更有可能得到改善(与保持不变或下降相比)(p = .03)。他们鼓励他人接种 COVID-19 疫苗的意愿也有了更大的改善。各组之间在 COVID-19 疫苗接种信心或意向方面没有差异。与对照组相比,干预组的一般疫苗接种率和接种责任感更高。干预组的大多数参与者表示满意程度较高。在 4 周的时间里,参与者平均参与内容(如评论、反应)11.8 次:在 Facebook 私人群组中与疫苗恐惧症患者互动,可以改善 COVID-19 疫苗相关的一些信念,是一种很有前景的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Education & Behavior
Health Education & Behavior PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Health Education & Behavior is the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE). The journal publishes authoritative and practical information on critical health issues for a broad range of professionals interested in understanding factors associated with health behavior and health status, and strategies to improve social and behavioral health. The journal is interested in articles directed toward researchers and/or practitioners in health behavior and health education. Empirical research, case study, program evaluation, literature reviews, and articles discussing theories are regularly published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信