Trust in public health institutions moderates the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine discussion groups on Facebook.

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Communication in Healthcare Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1080/17538068.2023.2283308
Donald Koban, Lorien C Abroms, Melissa Napolitano, Samuel Simmens, David A Broniatowski
{"title":"Trust in public health institutions moderates the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine discussion groups on Facebook.","authors":"Donald Koban, Lorien C Abroms, Melissa Napolitano, Samuel Simmens, David A Broniatowski","doi":"10.1080/17538068.2023.2283308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distrust and partisan identity are theorized to undermine health communications. We examined the role of these factors on the efficacy of discussion groups intended to promote vaccine uptake.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We analyzed survey data from unvaccinated Facebook users (N = 371) living in the US between January and April 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to Facebook discussion groups (intervention) or referred to Facebook's COVID-19 Information Center (control). We used Analysis of Covariance to test if the intervention was more effective at changing vaccination intentions and beliefs compared to the control in subgroups based on participants' partisan identity, political views, and information trust views.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found a significant interaction between the intervention and trust in public health institutions (PHIs) for improving intentions to vaccinate (<i>P</i> = .04), intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (<i>P</i> = .03), and vaccine confidence beliefs (<i>P</i> = .01). Among participants who trusted PHIs, those in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (<i>P</i> = .008) and intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (<i>P</i> = .002) compared to the control. Among non-conservatives, participants in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (<i>P</i> = .048). The intervention was more effective at improving intentions to encourage others to vaccinate within the subgroups of Republicans (<i>P</i> = .03), conservatives (<i>P</i> = .02), and participants who distrusted government (<i>P</i> = .02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Facebook discussion groups were more effective for people who trusted PHIs and non-conservatives. Health communicators may need to segment health messaging and develop strategies around trust views.</p>","PeriodicalId":38052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","volume":"16 4","pages":"375-384"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2023.2283308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Distrust and partisan identity are theorized to undermine health communications. We examined the role of these factors on the efficacy of discussion groups intended to promote vaccine uptake.

Method: We analyzed survey data from unvaccinated Facebook users (N = 371) living in the US between January and April 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to Facebook discussion groups (intervention) or referred to Facebook's COVID-19 Information Center (control). We used Analysis of Covariance to test if the intervention was more effective at changing vaccination intentions and beliefs compared to the control in subgroups based on participants' partisan identity, political views, and information trust views.

Results: We found a significant interaction between the intervention and trust in public health institutions (PHIs) for improving intentions to vaccinate (P = .04), intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (P = .03), and vaccine confidence beliefs (P = .01). Among participants who trusted PHIs, those in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (P = .008) and intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (P = .002) compared to the control. Among non-conservatives, participants in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (P = .048). The intervention was more effective at improving intentions to encourage others to vaccinate within the subgroups of Republicans (P = .03), conservatives (P = .02), and participants who distrusted government (P = .02).

Conclusions: Facebook discussion groups were more effective for people who trusted PHIs and non-conservatives. Health communicators may need to segment health messaging and develop strategies around trust views.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对公共卫生机构的信任会调节 Facebook 上 COVID-19 疫苗讨论组的有效性。
背景:不信任和党派认同被认为会破坏健康传播。我们研究了这些因素对旨在促进疫苗接种的讨论组功效的影响:我们分析了 2022 年 1 月至 4 月期间居住在美国的未接种疫苗的 Facebook 用户(N = 371)的调查数据。参与者被随机分配到 Facebook 讨论组(干预)或 Facebook COVID-19 信息中心(对照)。我们根据参与者的党派身份、政治观点和信息信任观点,在分组中使用协方差分析法检验干预措施与对照组相比是否能更有效地改变疫苗接种意向和信念:我们发现,干预措施与对公共卫生机构(PHIs)的信任之间存在明显的交互作用,可改善疫苗接种意愿(P = .04)、鼓励他人接种疫苗的意愿(P = .03)和疫苗信心(P = .01)。与对照组相比,在信任个人健康防护信息的参与者中,干预组在测试后的疫苗接种意愿(P = .008)和鼓励他人接种疫苗的意愿(P = .002)更高。在非保守派中,干预参与者在测试后的疫苗接种意愿更高(P = .048)。在共和党人(P = .03)、保守派(P = .02)和不信任政府的参与者(P = .02)等亚群中,干预对提高鼓励他人接种疫苗的意愿更为有效:结论:Facebook 讨论组对信任私人健康信息的人和非保守派人士更有效。健康传播者可能需要对健康信息进行细分,并围绕信任观点制定策略。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Communication in Healthcare
Journal of Communication in Healthcare Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
Open access to pathology reports: potential harms and proposed solutions. The promise of AI in healthcare: transforming communication and decision-making for patients. Doctor on call: physician smartphone use during medical consultations. Public health professionals' views on climate change, advocacy, and health. Adaptation in communication technology utilization: caring for individuals with chronic conditions in South Asia during the Covid-19 pandemic.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1