用户使用由管理员管理的 Facebook 群组推广疫苗接种的体验。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH American Journal of Health Promotion Pub Date : 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1177/08901171241272061
Christina N Wysota, Lorien C Abroms, Hanna DeVarona, Donald Koban, Melissa Napolitano, David A Broniatowski
{"title":"用户使用由管理员管理的 Facebook 群组推广疫苗接种的体验。","authors":"Christina N Wysota, Lorien C Abroms, Hanna DeVarona, Donald Koban, Melissa Napolitano, David A Broniatowski","doi":"10.1177/08901171241272061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine user experiences in a moderated Facebook group intervention aimed at Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine promotion.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Facebook group members were given 2-3 vaccination posts/day for 28 days (four weeks). Posts were aimed at educating about COVID-19 vaccination, soliciting concerns around COVID-19 vaccination, and engaging members. Participants were surveyed about their experience at four weeks.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Moderated Facebook group.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Unvaccinated individuals who were randomized to the intervention group and completed four week follow-up (N = 216, 82.1%).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>After four weeks, participants rated their experience in the Facebook group (eg, program satisfaction) and provided open-text responses about their satisfaction with the group. Free-text responses were dual coded and emergent themes were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, participants were 37.0 years old (SD = 10.3), majority female (70.9%), and white (79.7%). The majority of participants were satisfied with the group (76.7%), agreed that other people were friendly (M = 5.58/7), and felt safe discussing health information (M = 3.96/5). Open-text responses revealed that participants liked the program because they thought the information was useful (27.7%), other members were friendly (16.1%), and the group was a safe place (13.8%). While many responded that there was nothing they did not like about the program (37.6%), nearly one-third (31.9%) reported disliking the program because it appeared to be too much in favor of vaccination and because other members came across as rude (7.1%). Those with conservative political views were less likely to be satisfied with the group (<i>P</i> = .04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Facebook groups represent an acceptable way to engage participants to improve vaccination against COVID-19. Some aspects of the Facebook group could be improved for future iterations.</p>","PeriodicalId":7481,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Health Promotion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"User Experiences With a Moderated Facebook Group to Promote Vaccination.\",\"authors\":\"Christina N Wysota, Lorien C Abroms, Hanna DeVarona, Donald Koban, Melissa Napolitano, David A Broniatowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08901171241272061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To examine user experiences in a moderated Facebook group intervention aimed at Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine promotion.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Facebook group members were given 2-3 vaccination posts/day for 28 days (four weeks). Posts were aimed at educating about COVID-19 vaccination, soliciting concerns around COVID-19 vaccination, and engaging members. Participants were surveyed about their experience at four weeks.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Moderated Facebook group.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Unvaccinated individuals who were randomized to the intervention group and completed four week follow-up (N = 216, 82.1%).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>After four weeks, participants rated their experience in the Facebook group (eg, program satisfaction) and provided open-text responses about their satisfaction with the group. Free-text responses were dual coded and emergent themes were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On average, participants were 37.0 years old (SD = 10.3), majority female (70.9%), and white (79.7%). The majority of participants were satisfied with the group (76.7%), agreed that other people were friendly (M = 5.58/7), and felt safe discussing health information (M = 3.96/5). Open-text responses revealed that participants liked the program because they thought the information was useful (27.7%), other members were friendly (16.1%), and the group was a safe place (13.8%). While many responded that there was nothing they did not like about the program (37.6%), nearly one-third (31.9%) reported disliking the program because it appeared to be too much in favor of vaccination and because other members came across as rude (7.1%). Those with conservative political views were less likely to be satisfied with the group (<i>P</i> = .04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Facebook groups represent an acceptable way to engage participants to improve vaccination against COVID-19. Some aspects of the Facebook group could be improved for future iterations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Health Promotion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Health Promotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171241272061\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Health Promotion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171241272061","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究用户在旨在推广 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)疫苗的 Facebook 群组干预中的体验:设计:在为期 28 天(四周)的时间里,Facebook 小组成员每天发布 2-3 条疫苗接种帖子。帖子旨在宣传 COVID-19 疫苗接种知识、征求对 COVID-19 疫苗接种的关注并吸引成员参与。在四周后对参与者的体验进行调查:参与者参与者:未接种疫苗的个人,他们被随机分配到干预组,并完成了四周的跟踪调查(N = 216,82.1%):四周后,参与者对其在 Facebook 群组中的体验进行评分(例如,项目满意度),并就其对群组的满意度提供开放文本回复。对自由文本回复进行双重编码,并对出现的主题进行研究:参与者平均年龄为 37.0 岁(SD = 10.3),大多数为女性(70.9%)和白人(79.7%)。大多数参与者对小组感到满意(76.7%),认为其他人都很友好(M = 5.58/7),并在讨论健康信息时感到安全(M = 3.96/5)。开放文本回答显示,参与者喜欢该计划是因为他们认为信息有用(27.7%),其他成员友好(16.1%),小组是一个安全的地方(13.8%)。虽然很多人回答说他们没有什么不喜欢这个项目的地方(37.6%),但也有近三分之一(31.9%)的人表示不喜欢这个项目,因为它似乎过于支持疫苗接种,而且其他成员显得很粗鲁(7.1%)。政治观点保守的人对该小组的满意度较低(P = .04):结论:Facebook 群组是让参与者参与改善 COVID-19 疫苗接种的一种可接受的方式。Facebook 群组的某些方面可以在今后的迭代中加以改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
User Experiences With a Moderated Facebook Group to Promote Vaccination.

Purpose: To examine user experiences in a moderated Facebook group intervention aimed at Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine promotion.

Design: Facebook group members were given 2-3 vaccination posts/day for 28 days (four weeks). Posts were aimed at educating about COVID-19 vaccination, soliciting concerns around COVID-19 vaccination, and engaging members. Participants were surveyed about their experience at four weeks.

Setting: Moderated Facebook group.

Participants: Unvaccinated individuals who were randomized to the intervention group and completed four week follow-up (N = 216, 82.1%).

Method: After four weeks, participants rated their experience in the Facebook group (eg, program satisfaction) and provided open-text responses about their satisfaction with the group. Free-text responses were dual coded and emergent themes were examined.

Results: On average, participants were 37.0 years old (SD = 10.3), majority female (70.9%), and white (79.7%). The majority of participants were satisfied with the group (76.7%), agreed that other people were friendly (M = 5.58/7), and felt safe discussing health information (M = 3.96/5). Open-text responses revealed that participants liked the program because they thought the information was useful (27.7%), other members were friendly (16.1%), and the group was a safe place (13.8%). While many responded that there was nothing they did not like about the program (37.6%), nearly one-third (31.9%) reported disliking the program because it appeared to be too much in favor of vaccination and because other members came across as rude (7.1%). Those with conservative political views were less likely to be satisfied with the group (P = .04).

Conclusion: Facebook groups represent an acceptable way to engage participants to improve vaccination against COVID-19. Some aspects of the Facebook group could be improved for future iterations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Health Promotion
American Journal of Health Promotion PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: The editorial goal of the American Journal of Health Promotion is to provide a forum for exchange among the many disciplines involved in health promotion and an interface between researchers and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
A Health System-Community Partnership to Advance Health Equity. Collaborating for Health Equity: A Perspective of an Federally Qualified Health Center's Community Partnerships and Initiatives. In Briefs. The Role of Health Systems in Cross-Sector Collaboration in Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Promoting Health and Well-Being. The Role of Health Systems in Cross-Sector Collaboration in Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Promoting Health and Well-Being.
×
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