Journal of Health Communication最新文献

Media coverage of depression on social media with specific framings could shape people's perception and attitude, which is significant in reducing the stigma and promoting support for depression sufferers. Adopting the lens of moral foundation theory (MFT), this study aims to explore the effect of inherent moral framings within depression coverage on social media on the stigma and approval attitudes toward depression in audiences' responses. A large language model and a dictionary-based approach were respectively adopted to score depression-related media coverages (n = 919) and corresponding comments (n = 92,505) collected from the Weibo platform against MFT's five dimensions and (de)stigma attitudes. The results indicated that care, purity, and fairness framings are prevalent in depression coverage, surpassing moral framings such as betrayal, harm, and cheating. Most responses expressed approval rather than stigma. Moreover, the use of care and loyalty framings can elicit approval responses but decrease audience engagement.

In a secondary analysis, we examine how trust in pro-recommendation versus alternative communication channels mediated effects of demographic, personality, lifestyle, and political variables on COVID-19 protective behavior in England. In so doing, we adapt the media-as-mediator approach to the pandemic context. Respondents reported that family, close friends, primary care medical providers, and mainstream news media were relatively supportive of public health recommendations, and social media friend networks, faith/community groups, alternative news sites, and alternative health practitioners were relatively unsupportive. Parallel mediation analyses showed that effects of age, dutiful civic-mindedness, sensation-seeking, healthy lifestyle orientation, and more marginally, race on COVID-19 protective behavior were mediated by trust in these pro-recommendation and/or alternative communication channels. In some cases, trust in exemplars of both types of channels resulted in these channels influences largely canceling one another out.

With COVID-19 vaccination rates remaining below optimal levels, scalable interventions to shift vaccination intentions are needed. We embedded two randomized experiments in South Africa's COVID-19 Vaccine Survey (CVACS) to investigate the potential to change vaccine intentions and behavior. In Experiment 1, 3510 unvaccinated South African adults were randomly assigned to a no-message control group, a social norm message, or a message highlighting that vaccines were free, available and easy to obtain. The free and easy message significantly increased vaccine intentions but did not increase other outcome measures. The social proof message was associated with an increase in self-reported vaccination status at follow-up (not significant at traditional statistical thresholds). In Experiment 2, 3608 unvaccinated South African adults were randomly assigned to a no-message control group, a message highlighting gaining greater freedoms, or a message highlighting being part of the solution to the pandemic. Neither value proposition message increased vaccination intentions. Light-touch and scalable messages informed by behavioral science and social marketing principles may increase vaccination intentions and uptake, However, more attention should be paid to understanding the behavioral barriers experienced by different population segments, and to tailoring and targeting messaging to those barriers and segments.

Young people account for over half of new STI cases and youth of color face increased sexual health disparities. In partnership with Fact Forward, researchers conducted qualitative formative audience research to develop a culture-centered health communication campaign to increase access to and use of sexual health services among youth of color in South Carolina. Grounded in a reproductive justice theoretical framework, this study employed innovative strategies, including training youth ambassadors to moderate peer-to-peer focus groups. A total of 134 participants were recruited for the study with 51 individuals participating in 9 focus groups and 83 respondents completing a web-based survey (ages 15-24). Qualitative data analyses used Nvivo 1.5.1. Statistical analyses used R Studio®. Findings revealed barriers including lack of education about risks. Participants identified dimensions of inequity and the importance of intersectional messaging to address intimacy, sexuality, and trust. They emphasized normalizing conversations about sexual health and the need for important others "in your corner" to provide support. Participants suggested an empowering storytelling approach to reduce shame surrounding sexual health services. Social media emerged as an optimal communication channel. UNC Perceived Message Effectiveness (PME) Scale scores ranged from 4.42 to 4.57 (out of 5) indicating that messages were well received by participants. Sex-positive campaign messaging focused on self-love, empowerment, and taking control of sexual health. This study offers practical suggestions to develop effective communication strategies to reach youth of color to increase use of sexual health services, including contraceptive counseling, STI prevention, screening, and treatment.

Our team developed Conversation Cards for Adolescents© (CCAs), a tool to help adolescents and health care providers (HCPs) communicate and collaboratively set behavior change goals. The objectives of this pilot randomized controlled trial were to test the feasibility, user experience, and preliminary effect of using CCAs with adolescents in primary care, focusing on behavior change and collaborative goal setting among adolescents. From March 2019 to September 2022, adolescents were recruited from the Northeast Community Health Centre (Edmonton, AB). Adolescents were randomized (1:1) to one of two groups: CCA + goal setting (experimental group) or goal setting alone (control group). Data were collected from both groups at baseline and at 3-weeks post-baseline. In total, 31 adolescents completed the trial (terminated early due to COVID-19). The study demonstrated high practicality. Adolescents reported positive user experiences with CCAs, citing attractiveness, clarity, efficiency, and dependability. No group differences were detected for behavior changes at 3-weeks post-baseline (p > .05), although adolescents in the experimental group qualitatively described improved rapport and communication with HCPs. CCAs can be used practically in a primary health care setting to facilitate communication and rapport with adolescents; however, their effect in enabling behavior change should be investigated in a multi-site, larger-scale trial.

To examine the effects of numerical evidence and message framing in communicating vaccine efficacy information about infectious diseases, an online experiment presented to U.S. adults different versions of a vaccination promotional message that vary by numerical vaccine efficacy evidence: (low efficacy rate: 60% vs. high efficacy rate: 95%), outcome framing (preventing disease-related infection vs. preventing disease-related severe illness), and gain vs. loss framing, using a factorial between-subjects design. While there was no significant interaction between numerical vaccine efficacy evidence and message framing, findings showed that a higher vaccine efficacy rate increased positive beliefs about vaccination and outcome framing emphasizing infection prevention increased message processing fluency. Given that infectious diseases pose higher risks for severe illness among older adults, follow-up analyses by age showed that only younger adults were sensitive to message framing where outcome framing emphasizing infection prevention increased processing fluency.

The current study investigated the effectiveness of factual and narrative messages in promoting advocacy intentions among viewers of COVID-19 vaccination messaging. In an online posttest only experiment on Qualtrics online software, participants (N = 323) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions related to type of messaging (i.e. factual, narrative, both, control). The final model revealed that both types of messages work in generating advocacy but through two distinct influential pathways. Moreover, a message containing both facts and a narrative proved to be more effective than a message containing only a narrative or only facts.

This study examined how message themes, frames, and sources in vaping cessation videos on TikTok influenced positive (i.e. likes, shares, positive comments regarding quitting vaping) and negative video engagement (i.e. negative comments regarding quitting vaping). TikTok videos (N = 412) with the hashtags #quitvaping and #quittingvaping were analyzed. Aspect-based sentiment analysis was conducted to evaluate the sentiment of quitting vaping in comments. Negative binomial regression models predicted video engagement from six message themes, ratios of gain and loss frames, and message sources. Themes related to nicotine addiction and physical health effectively drove positive engagement, such as likes and shares. The theme of harmful chemicals elicited mixed responses, generating both positive and negative comments regarding quitting vaping. Videos with a higher ratio of gain frames led to more positive engagement, including likes, shares, and positive comments regarding quitting vaping. Sources with informal expertise (e.g. those who have successfully quit vaping) and current e-cigarette users were more effective in engaging the TikTok audience than non-expert and non-user sources. These findings provide insights into messaging strategies that can effectively engage TikTok audiences and encourage vaping cessation.

Despite the robust scientific evidence affirming the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the proliferation of misinformation on social media platforms poses a threat by potentially exacerbating vaccine hesitancy. In response, certain social media platforms have taken measures to flag posts containing such misinformation with warning labels, aiming to dispel false beliefs. This present study employs a survey experiment (N = 304) to examine the effectiveness of two distinct warning labels - disputed and neutral warning labels - in the Twitter (the social media platform now known as X) context, specifically targeting misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. This study investigates the nuanced effects of vaccine hesitancy on the perceived credibility of debunked misinformation posts following the application of warning flags. The results demonstrated that disputed labels significantly reduced the perceived credibility of misinformation regarding anti-COVID-19 vaccines in comparison to posts without any labeling. Nevertheless, individuals exhibiting higher levels of vaccine hesitancy tended to view the misinformation as more credible than their counterparts with lower levels of hesitancy. These findings present the efficacy of warning labels in combatting misinformation on social media platforms, particularly among those who are least hesitant about vaccination.