Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.

Tweet for Behavior Change: Using Social Media for the Dissemination of Public Health Messages

Aisling Gough, Ruth F Hunter, Oluwaseun Ajao and 8 more

JMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2017

doi:10.2196/publichealth.6313

Abstract

Background. Social media public health campaigns have the advantage of tailored messaging at low cost and large reach, but little is known about what would determine their feasibility as tools for inducing attitude and behavior change.

Objective. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of designing, implementing, and evaluating a social media–enabled intervention for skin cancer prevention.

Methods. A quasi-experimental feasibility study used social media (Twitter) to disseminate different message “frames” related to care in the sun and cancer prevention. Phase 1 utilized the Northern Ireland cancer charity’s Twitter platform (May 1 to July 14, 2015). Following a 2-week “washout” period, Phase 2 commenced (August 1 to September 30, 2015) using a bespoke Twitter platform. Phase 2 also included a Thunderclap, whereby users allowed their social media accounts to automatically post a bespoke message on their behalf. Message frames were categorized into 5 broad categories: humor, shock or disgust, informative, personal stories, and opportunistic. Seed users with a notable following were contacted to be “influencers” in retweeting campaign content. A pre- and postintervention Web-based survey recorded skin cancer prevention knowledge and attitudes in Northern Ireland (population 1.8 million).

Results. There were a total of 417,678 tweet impressions, 11,213 engagements, and 1211 retweets related to our campaign. Shocking messages generated the greatest impressions (shock, n=2369; informative, n=2258; humorous, n=1458; story, n=1680), whereas humorous messages generated greater engagement (humorous, n=148; shock, n=147; story, n=117; informative, n=100) and greater engagement rates compared with story tweets. Informative messages, resulted in the greatest number of shares (informative, n=17; humorous, n=10; shock, n=9; story, n=7). The study findings included improved knowledge of skin cancer severity in a pre- and postintervention Web-based survey, with greater awareness that skin cancer is the most common form of cancer (preintervention: 28.4% [95/335] vs postintervention: 39.3% [168/428] answered “True”) and that melanoma is most serious (49.1% [165/336] vs 55.5% [238/429]). The results also show improved attitudes toward ultraviolet (UV) exposure and skin cancer with a reduction in agreement that respondents “like to tan” (60.5% [202/334] vs 55.6% [238/428]).

Conclusions. Social media–disseminated public health messages reached more than 23% of the Northern Ireland population. A Web-based survey suggested that the campaign might have contributed to improved knowledge and attitudes toward skin cancer among the target population. Findings suggested that shocking and humorous messages generated greatest impressions and engagement, but information-based messages were likely to be shared most. The extent of behavioral change as a result of the campaign remains to be explored, however, the change of attitudes and knowledge is promising. Social media is an inexpensive, effective method for delivering public health messages. However, existing and traditional process evaluation methods may not be suitable for social media.

Full text

Its licence does not allow us to show the full text. Read it at PubMed Central:

Read at PubMed Central

References 76

  1. 1.

    Kaplan A, Haenlein M. Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus Horiz. 2010;53(1):59-68.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

  2. 2.

    Syred J, Naidoo C, Woodhall SC, Baraitser P. Would you tell everyone this? Facebook conversations as health promotion interventions. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(4):e108.

    Not in our library10.2196/jmir.3231

  3. 3.

    Perrin A. Pew Research Center.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    Twitter.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    Facebook.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.

    Duggan M, Ellison N, Lampe C, Lenhart A, Madden M. Pew Research Center. 2016.

    Not in our library

  7. 7.

    Public Health England Social Marketing Strategy 2014-2017: One year on. -05-06. 2016.

    Not in our library

  8. 8.

    Schein R, Wilson K, Keelan J. A report for Peel public health.

    Not in our library

  9. 9.

    Kietzmann J, Hermkens K, McCarthy I, Silvestre B. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Bus Horiz. 2011;54(3):241-251.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005

  10. 10.

    2012. NHS UK.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    Deller R, Tilton S. Selfies as charitable meme: charity and notational identity in the #nomakeupselfie and #thunbsupforstephen campaign. ‎Int J Comm. 2015;9:1788-805.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    George D, Rovniak L, Kraschnewski J. Dangers and opportunities for social media in medicine. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2013;56(3).

    Not in our library10.1097/grf.0b013e318297dc38

  13. 13.

    Neiger B, Thackery R, Burton S, Giraud-Carrier C, Fagen M. Evaluating social media's capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: use of Twitter metrics as a case study. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(2):157-62.

    Not in our library10.1177/1524839912469378

  14. 14.

    Chou W, Prestin A, Lyons C, Wen K. Web 2.0 for health promotion: reviewing the current evidence. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(1):e9-e18.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2012.301071

  15. 15.

    Heldman A, Schindelar J, Weaver IJ. Social media engagement and public health communication: implications for public health organizations being truly “social”. Public Health Rev. 2013;35(1):1.

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    Griffiths F, Lindenmeyer A, Powell J, Lowe P, Thorogood M. Why are health care interventions delivered over the internet? A systematic review of the published literature. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(2):e10.

    Not in our library10.2196/jmir.8.2.e10

  17. 17.

    Thackeray R, Neiger B, Hanson C, McKenzie J. Enhancing promotional strategies within social marketing programs: use of Web 2.0 social media. Health Promot Pract. 2008;9(4):338-43.

    Not in our library10.1177/1524839908325335

  18. 18.

    Korda H, Itani Z. Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(1):15-23.

    Not in our library10.1177/1524839911405850

  19. 19.

    Pagoto S, Waring M, May C, Ding E, Kunz W, Hayes R, Oleski J. Adapting behavioral interventions for social media delivery. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(1):e24.

    Not in our library10.2196/jmir.5086

  20. 20.

    Milton N. Nickmilton. 2014.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    Kofinas J, Varrey A, Sapra K, Kanj R, Chervenak F, Asfaw T. Adjunctive social media for more effective contraceptive counseling: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(4):763-70.

    Not in our library10.1097/aog.0000000000000172

  22. 22.

    Schnitzler K, Davies N, Ross F, Harris R. Using Twitter™ to drive research impact: a discussion of strategies, opportunities and challenges. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;59:15-26.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.02.004

  23. 23.

    Laranjo L, Arguel A, Neves A, Gallagher A, Kaplan R, Mortimer N, Mendes G, Lau A. The influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;22(1):243-56.

    Not in our library10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002841

  24. 24.
    The Use of Twitter to Track Levels of Disease Activity and Public Concern in the U.S. during the Influenza A H1N1 Pandemic · 2011
    No notice
  25. 25.

    Lefebvre RC, Bornkessel AS. Digital social networks and health. Circulation. 2013;127(17):1829-36.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.112.000897

  26. 26.

    Department for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS). Skin cancer prevention - strategy and action plan (2011-2021). Department of Health, UK. 2011.

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    Donnelly DW, Gavin AT. Northern Ireland Cancer Registry. 2015.

    Not in our library

  28. 28.

    Montague M, Borland R, Sinclair C. Slip! Slop! Slap! and SunSmart, 1980-2000: Skin cancer control and 20 years of population-based campaigning. Health Educ Behav. 2001;28(3):290-305.

    Not in our library10.1177/109019810102800304

  29. 29.

    Miles A, Waller J, Hiom S, Swanston D. SunSmart? Skin cancer knowledge and preventive behaviour in a British population representative sample. Health Educ Res. 2005;20(5):579-85.

    Not in our library10.1093/her/cyh010

  30. 30.
    CONSORT-EHEALTH: Improving and Standardizing Evaluation Reports of Web-based and Mobile Health Interventions · 2011
    No notice
  31. 31.

    Lister C, Royne M, Payne HE, Cannon B, Hanson C, Barnes M. The Laugh Model: reframing and rebranding public health through social media. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(11):2245-51.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2015.302669

  32. 32.

    Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34.

    Not in our library10.2196/jmir.6.3.e34

  33. 33.
    “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method · 2013
    No notice
  34. 34.
    The statistical interpretation of pilot trials: should significance thresholds be reconsidered? · 2014
    No notice
  35. 35.

    NISRA. 2012.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    NISRA. 2012.

    Not in our library

  37. 37.

    Hatch EE, Hahn KA, Wise LA, Mikkelsen EM, Kumar R, Fox MP, Brooks DR, Riis AH, Sorensen HT, Rothman KJ. Evaluation of selection bias in an internet-based study of pregnancy planners. Epidemiology. 2016;27(1):98-104.

    Not in our library10.1097/ede.0000000000000400

  38. 38.

    Hollier L, Pettigrew S, Slevin T, Strickland M, Minto C. Comparing online and telephone survey results in the context of a skin cancer prevention campaign evaluation. J Public Health. 2016;10:1-9.

    Not in our library10.1093/pubmed/fdw018

  39. 39.

    Gallagher K, Updegraff J. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med. 2011;43(1):101-16.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7

  40. 40.

    O’Keefe Dj, Wu D. Gain-framed messages do not motivate sun protection: a meta-analytic review of randomized trials comparing gain-framed and loss-framed appeals for promoting skin cancer prevention. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(12):2121-33.

    Not in our library10.3390/ijerph9062121

All 76 references

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.