Promoting Social Distancing and COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions to Mothers: Randomized Comparison of Information Sources in Social Media Messages

David Buller, Barbara Walkosz, Kimberly Henry, W Gill Woodall, Sherry Pagoto, Julia Berteletti, Alishia Kinsey, Joseph Divito, Katie Baker, Joel Hillhouse, David Buller, Barbara Walkosz, Kimberly Henry, W Gill Woodall, Sherry Pagoto, Julia Berteletti, Alishia Kinsey, Joseph Divito, Katie Baker, Joel Hillhouse

Abstract

Background: Social media disseminated information and spread misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic that affected prevention measures, including social distancing and vaccine acceptance.

Objective: In this study, we aimed to test the effect of a series of social media posts promoting COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and vaccine intentions and compare effects among 3 common types of information sources: government agency, near-peer parents, and news media.

Methods: A sample of mothers of teen daughters (N=303) recruited from a prior trial were enrolled in a 3 (information source) × 4 (assessment period) randomized factorial trial from January to March 2021 to evaluate the effects of information sources in a social media campaign addressing NPIs (ie, social distancing), COVID-19 vaccinations, media literacy, and mother-daughter communication about COVID-19. Mothers received 1 social media post per day in 3 randomly assigned Facebook private groups, Monday-Friday, covering all 4 topics each week, plus 1 additional post on a positive nonpandemic topic to promote engagement. Posts in the 3 groups had the same messages but differed by links to information from government agencies, near-peer parents, or news media in the post. Mothers reported on social distancing behavior and COVID-19 vaccine intentions for self and daughter, theoretic mediators, and covariates in baseline and 3-, 6-, and 9-week postrandomization assessments. Views, reactions, and comments related to each post were counted to measure engagement with the messages.

Results: Nearly all mothers (n=298, 98.3%) remained in the Facebook private groups throughout the 9-week trial period, and follow-up rates were high (n=276, 91.1%, completed the 3-week posttest; n=273, 90.1%, completed the 6-week posttest; n=275, 90.8%, completed the 9-week posttest; and n=244, 80.5%, completed all assessments). In intent-to-treat analyses, social distancing behavior by mothers (b=-0.10, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.08, P<.001) and daughters (b=-0.10, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03, P<.001) decreased over time but vaccine intentions increased (mothers: b=0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.49, P<.001; daughters: b=0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.29, P=.01). Decrease in social distancing by daughters was greater in the near-peer source group (b=-0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.00, P=.03) and lesser in the government agency group (b=0.05, 95% CI 0.02-0.09, P=.003). The higher perceived credibility of the assigned information source increased social distancing (mothers: b=0.29, 95% CI 0.09-0.49, P<.01; daughters: b=0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.51, P<.01) and vaccine intentions (mothers: b=4.18, 95% CI 1.83-6.53, P<.001; daughters: b=3.36, 95% CI 1.67-5.04, P<.001). Mothers' intentions to vaccinate self may have increased when they considered the near-peer source to be not credible (b=-0.50, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.01, P=.05).

Conclusions: Decreasing case counts, relaxation of government restrictions, and vaccine distribution during the study may explain the decreased social distancing and increased vaccine intentions. When promoting COVID-19 prevention, campaign planners may be more effective when selecting information sources that audiences consider credible, as no source was more credible in general.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02835807; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02835807.

Keywords: COVID-19; COVID-19 prevention; health promotion; information source; misinformation; nonpharmaceutical interventions; public health; social media; vaccination; vaccine.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: DB receives a salary from Klein Buendel, Inc., and his spouse is an owner of Klein Buendel. AK, BW, WGW, and JB receive a salary from Klein Buendel, Inc. SP, KH, KB, JD, and JH have no conflicts to declare.

©David Buller, Barbara Walkosz, Kimberly Henry, W Gill Woodall, Sherry Pagoto, Julia Berteletti, Alishia Kinsey, Joseph Divito, Katie Baker, Joel Hillhouse. Originally published in JMIR Infodemiology (https://infodemiology.jmir.org), 23.08.2022.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT diagram for trial. CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protect Yourself. 2021. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Inglesby TV. Public health measures and the reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2. JAMA. 2020 Jun 02;323(21):2186–2187. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.7878.2765665
    1. Schoch-Spana M, Brunson EK, Long R, Ruth A, Ravi SJ, Trotochaud M, Borio L, Brewer J, Buccina J, Connell N, Hall LL, Kass N, Kirkland A, Koonin L, Larson H, Lu BF, Omer SB, Orenstein WA, Poland GA, Privor-Dumm L, Quinn SC, Salmon D, White A. The public's role in COVID-19 vaccination: human-centered recommendations to enhance pandemic vaccine awareness, access, and acceptance in the United States. Vaccine. 2021 Sep 24;39(40):6004–6012. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.10.059. S0264-410X(20)31368-2
    1. Qualls N, Levitt A, Kanade N, Wright-Jegede N, Dopson S, Biggerstaff M, Reed C, Uzicanin A, CDC Community Mitigation Guidelines Work Group Community mitigation guidelines to prevent pandemic influenza - United States, 2017. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2017 Apr 21;66(1):1–34. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.rr6601a1.
    1. Teasdale E, Santer M, Geraghty AWA, Little P, Yardley L. Public perceptions of non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing transmission of respiratory infection: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC Public Health. 2014 Jun 11;14(1):589. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-589. 1471-2458-14-589
    1. Eikenberry SE, Mancuso M, Iboi E, Phan T, Eikenberry K, Kuang Y, Kostelich E, Gumel AB. To mask or not to mask: modeling the potential for face mask use by the general public to curtail the COVID-19 pandemic. Infect Dis Model. 2020;5:293–308. doi: 10.1016/j.idm.2020.04.001. S2468-0427(20)30011-7
    1. Delen D, Eryarsoy E, Davazdahemami B. No place like home: cross-national data analysis of the efficacy of social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 May 28;6(2):e19862. doi: 10.2196/19862. v6i2e19862
    1. Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schünemann HJ, Chu DK, Akl EA, El-harakeh A, Bognanni A, Lotfi T, Loeb M, Hajizadeh A, Bak A, Izcovich A, Cuello-Garcia CA, Chen C, Harris DJ, Borowiack E, Chamseddine F, Schünemann F, Morgano GP, Muti Schünemann G, Chen G, Zhao H, Neumann I, Chan J, Khabsa J, Hneiny L, Harrison L, Smith M, Rizk N, Giorgi Rossi P, AbiHanna P, El-khoury R, Stalteri R, Baldeh T, Piggott T, Zhang Y, Saad Z, Khamis A, Reinap M, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schünemann HJ. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2020 Jun 01;395(10242):1973–1987. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9. S0140-6736(20)31142-9
    1. Talic S, Shah S, Wild H, Gasevic D, Maharaj A, Ademi Z, Li X, Xu W, Mesa-Eguiagaray I, Rostron J, Theodoratou E, Zhang X, Motee A, Liew D, Ilic D. Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2021 Nov 17;375:e068302. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2021-068302.
    1. USC Center for Economic and Social Research Understanding Coronavirus in America. 2021. [2022-06-02].
    1. Katz J, Sanger-Katz M, Quealy K. A Detailed Map of Who Is Wearing Masks in the U.S. 2020. Nov 11, [2022-08-01]. .
    1. Zimet GD, Silverman RD, Fortenberry JD. Coronavirus disease 2019 and vaccination of children and adolescents: prospects and challenges. J Pediatr. 2021 Apr;231:254–258. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.11.002. S0022-3476(20)31379-2
    1. Szilagyi PG, Thomas K, Shah MD, Vizueta N, Cui Y, Vangala S, Kapteyn A. Likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination by subgroups across the US: post-election trends and disparities. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2021 Oct 03;17(10):3262–3267. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1929695.
    1. Robinson E, Jones A, Lesser I, Daly M. International estimates of intended uptake and refusal of COVID-19 vaccines: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of large nationally representative samples. Vaccine. 2021 Apr 08;39(15):2024–2034. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.02.005. S0264-410X(21)00140-7
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) CDC Extends Eligibility for COVID-19 Booster Shots. 2021. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Takes Additional Actions on the Use of a Booster Dose for COVID-19 Vaccines. 2021. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Johnson NF, Velásquez N, Restrepo NJ, Leahy R, Gabriel N, El Oud S, Zheng M, Manrique P, Wuchty S, Lupu Y. The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views. Nature. 2020 Jun 13;582(7811):230–233. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1.10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1
    1. Roose K. Get Ready for a Vaccine Information War. 2020. [2022-08-01]. .
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID Data Tracker. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Timeline of Events Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. New York Times See Reopening Plans and Mask Mandates for all 50 States. [2000-06-02]. .
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID Data Tracker: Trends in Number of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in the US Reported to CDC, by State/Territory. 2021. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Hamel L, Lopes L, Kearney A, Brodie M. Covid-19 Vaccine Monitor: March 2021. 2021. [2022-06-02].
    1. Mitchell A, Jurkowitz M, Oliphant J, Shearer E. Americans Who Mainly Get Their News on Social Media Are Less Engaged, Less Knowledgeable. 2020. [2022-06-02].
    1. Naeem SB, Bhatti R, Khan A. An exploration of how fake news is taking over social media and putting public health at risk. Health Info Libr J. 2021 Jun 12;38(2):143–149. doi: 10.1111/hir.12320.
    1. Satariano A, Alba D. Burning Cell Towers, Out of Baseless Fear They Spread the Virus. 2020. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Mian A, Khan S. Coronavirus: the spread of misinformation. BMC Med. 2020 Mar 18;18(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01556-3. 10.1186/s12916-020-01556-3
    1. Larson HJ. A call to arms: helping family, friends and communities navigate the COVID-19 infodemic. Nat Rev Immunol. 2020 Aug;20(8):449–450. doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-0380-8. 10.1038/s41577-020-0380-8
    1. Dunn AG, Surian D, Leask J, Dey A, Mandl KD, Coiera E. Mapping information exposure on social media to explain differences in HPV vaccine coverage in the United States. Vaccine. 2017 May 25;35(23):3033–3040. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.04.060. S0264-410X(17)30552-2
    1. Roozenbeek J, Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, van der Bles AM, van der Linden S. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Oct 14;7(10):201199. doi: 10.1098/rsos.201199. rsos201199
    1. Kreps SE, Kriner D. Medical misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic. SSRN J. 2020:1–22. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3624510.
    1. Chou WS, Oh A, Klein WMP. Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. JAMA. 2018 Dec 18;320(23):2417–2418. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.16865.2715795
    1. Yang YT, Broniatowski DA, Reiss DR. Government role in regulating vaccine misinformation on social media platforms. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Nov 01;173(11):1011–1012. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.2838.2748692
    1. Bode L, Vraga EK. See something, say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Commun. 2018 Sep;33(9):1131–1140. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312.
    1. van der Meer TGLA, Jin Y. Seeking formula for misinformation treatment in public health crises: the effects of corrective information type and source. Health Commun. 2020 May 14;35(5):560–575. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295.
    1. Walter N, Murphy ST. How to unring the bell: a meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Commun Monogr. 2018 May 15;85(3):423–441. doi: 10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564.
    1. Laura J, Tarunjose K, Angelina K, Mojisola O, Enisa S, Valentine V, Fleur V, Lise B, Corinne V. How storytelling can combat vaccine hesitancy: a transdisciplinary approach. Transdiscipl Insights. 2018 Dec 15;2(1):92–103. doi: 10.11116/tdi2018.2.4.
    1. Vraga EK, Bode L. Correction as a solution for health misinformation on social media. Am J Public Health. 2020 Oct;110(S3):S278–S280. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2020.305916.
    1. Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun Monogr. 1992 Dec;59(4):329–349. doi: 10.1080/03637759209376276.
    1. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975 Sep;91(1):93–114. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803.
    1. Rogers R. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo J, Petty R, editors. Social Psychophysiology. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1983. pp. 153–176.
    1. Woodall G, Starling R, Buller D, Kong A, Wheeler C. Beta-test and randomized trial results for GoHealthyGirls: a website for HPV vaccine adoption. 29th Meeting of the International Papillomavirus Conference; August 20-25, 2014; Seattle, WA. 2014.
    1. Woodall W. Digital interventions to improve HPV vaccine uptake: results and issues. EUROGIN 2018 International Multidisciplinary HPV Congress; December 2-5, 2018; Lisbon, Portugal. 2018.
    1. Starling R, Nodulman JA, Kong AS, Wheeler CM, Buller DB, Woodall WG. Usability testing of an HPV information website for parents and adolescents. Online J Commun Media Technol. 2015 Oct;5(4):184–203.
    1. Farooq A, Laato S, Islam AKMN. Impact of online information on self-isolation intention during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 06;22(5):e19128. doi: 10.2196/19128. v22i5e19128
    1. Mutti-Packer S, Reid JL, Thrasher JF, Romer D, Fong GT, Gupta PC, Pednekar MS, Nargis N, Hammond D. The role of negative affect and message credibility in perceived effectiveness of smokeless tobacco health warning labels in Navi Mumbai, India and Dhaka, Bangladesh: a moderated-mediation analysis. Addict Behav. 2017 Oct;73:22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.04.002. S0306-4603(17)30142-9
    1. Soroya SH, Farooq A, Mahmood K, Isoaho J, Zara S. From information seeking to information avoidance: understanding the health information behavior during a global health crisis. Inf Process Manag. 2021 Mar;58(2):102440. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102440. S0306-4573(20)30933-X
    1. Wang P, Lu W, Ko N, Chen Y, Li D, Chang Y, Yen C. COVID-19-related information sources and the relationship with confidence in people coping with COVID-19: Facebook survey study in Taiwan. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 05;22(6):e20021. doi: 10.2196/20021. v22i6e20021
    1. De Gani SM, Berger FMP, Guggiari E, Jaks R. Relation of corona-specific health literacy to use of and trust in information sources during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health. 2022 Jan 06;22(1):42. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12271-w. 10.1186/s12889-021-12271-w
    1. Fridman I, Lucas N, Henke D, Zigler CK. Association between public knowledge about COVID-19, trust in information sources, and adherence to social distancing: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Sep 15;6(3):e22060. doi: 10.2196/22060. v6i3e22060
    1. Ali SH, Foreman J, Tozan Y, Capasso A, Jones AM, DiClemente RJ. Trends and predictors of COVID-19 information sources and their relationship with knowledge and beliefs related to the pandemic: nationwide cross-sectional study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Oct 08;6(4):e21071. doi: 10.2196/21071. v6i4e21071
    1. Feldman D. Do People Trust the News about COVID-19? 2020. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. McNeill A, Harris PR, Briggs P. Twitter influence on UK vaccination and antiviral uptake during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Front Public Health. 2016;4:26. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00026. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00026.
    1. Walther JB, Pingree S, Hawkins RP, Buller DB. Attributes of interactive online health information systems. J Med Internet Res. 2005 Jul 01;7(3):e33. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.3.e33. v7i3e33
    1. Walther J, Tong S, DeAndrea D, Carr C, Van Der Heide B. A juxtaposition of social influences: web 2.0 and the interaction of mass, interpersonal, and peer sources online. In: Birchmeier Z, Dietz-Uhler B, Strasser G, editors. Strategic Uses of Social Technology: An Interactive Perspective of Social Psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
    1. Borah P, Xiao X. The importance of 'likes': the interplay of message framing, source, and social endorsement on credibility perceptions of health information on Facebook. J Health Commun. 2018;23(4):399–411. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2018.1455770.
    1. Metzger M, Flanagin A. Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. J Pragmat. 2013 Dec;59:210–220. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012.
    1. Metzger M, Flanagin Aj, Eyal K, Lemus D, Mccann R. Communication Yearbook. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003. Jan, Credibility in the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment; pp. 293–335.
    1. De Coninck D, Frissen T, Matthijs K, d'Haenens L, Lits G, Champagne-Poirier O, Carignan M, David MD, Pignard-Cheynel N, Salerno S, Généreux Melissa. Beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation about COVID-19: comparative perspectives on the role of anxiety, depression and exposure to and trust in information sources. Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 16;12:646394. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646394. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646394.
    1. Wang P, Chen Y, Chang Y, Wu C, Lu W, Yen C. Sources of COVID-19-related information in people with various levels of risk perception and preventive behaviors in Taiwan: a latent profile analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Feb 21;18(4):2091. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18042091. ijerph18042091
    1. Zimet G, Panozzo C, Head K, Kornides M, Feemster K. Mothers are the primary decision-makers for adolescent HPV vaccination. Personal Communication. 2022
    1. Ranji U, Salganicoff A. Data Note: Balancing on Shaky Ground: Women, Work and Family Health. 2014. [2022-06-02].
    1. Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet: General Facts on Womand and Job Based Health. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Hughes A. Using Social Media Platforms to Amplify Public Health Messages. An Examination of Tenets and Best Practices for Communicating with Key Audiences. 2010. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav. 2004 Apr 30;31(2):143–164. doi: 10.1177/1090198104263660.
    1. Stryker J, Lazovich D, Forster J, Emmons K, Sorensen G, Demierre M. Maternal/female caregiver influences on adolescent indoor tanning. J Adolesc Health. 2004 Dec;35(6):528.e1. doi: 10.1016/s1054-139x(04)00091-6.
    1. Gore JS, Frederick H, Ramkissoon M. Mother-daughter communication and health: a cross-cultural comparison. Health Care Women Int. 2018 Sep;39(9):994–1007. doi: 10.1080/07399332.2018.1488852.
    1. Fisher CL, Kastrinos A, Piemonte N, Canzona MR, Wolf B, Pipe T. Coping with breast cancer together: challenging topics for mothers and their adolescent-young adult (AYA) daughters. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2021 Dec 13;:1–14. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2021.2005734.
    1. Buller DB, Pagoto S, Baker K, Walkosz BJ, Hillhouse J, Henry KL, Berteletti J, Bibeau J. Results of a social media campaign to prevent indoor tanning by teens: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med Rep. 2021 Jun;22:101382. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101382. S2211-3355(21)00072-3
    1. Buller D, Pagoto S, Henry K, Baker K, Walkosz B, Hillhouse J, Berteletti J, Bibeau J, Kinsey A. Persisting effects of a social media campaign to prevent indoor tanning: a randomized trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2022;31(4):885–892. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-21-0059.
    1. Magnusson K. Package 'powerlmm': Power Analysis for Longitudinal Multilevel Models. 2018. Aug 14, [2022-08-01]. .
    1. Tully M, Vraga EK, Bode L. Designing and testing news literacy messages for social media. Mass Commun Soc. 2019 May 22;23(1):22–46. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2019.1604970.
    1. Austin EW, Austin BW, Willoughby JF, Amram O, Domgaard S. How media literacy and science media literacy predicted the adoption of protective behaviors amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. J Health Commun. 2021 Apr 03;26(4):239–252. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2021.1899345.
    1. De AB. Gatekeeping misinformation with media literacy education. Knowledge Quest. 2021;50(2):26–31.
    1. AllSides Media Bias Ratings. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Scales D, Gorman J, Jamieson KH. The Covid-19 infodemic — applying the epidemiologic model to counter misinformation. N Engl J Med. 2021 Aug 19;385(8):678–681. doi: 10.1056/nejmp2103798.
    1. Rubin GJ, Amlôt R, Page L, Wessely S. Public perceptions, anxiety, and behaviour change in relation to the swine flu outbreak: cross sectional telephone survey. BMJ. 2009 Jul 02;339:b2651. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2651.
    1. World Health Organization COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO): Monitoring Knowledge, Risk Perceptions, Preventive Behaviours, and Public Trust in the Current Coronavirus Outbreak - WHO Standard Protocol. 2020. [2022-06-02].
    1. Head KJ, Kasting ML, Sturm LA, Hartsock JA, Zimet GD. A national survey assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccination intentions: implications for future public health communication efforts. Sci Commun. 2020 Sep 23;42(5):698–723. doi: 10.1177/1075547020960463.
    1. Ling M, Kothe EJ, Mullan BA. Predicting intention to receive a seasonal influenza vaccination using protection motivation theory. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Jul;233:87–92. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.06.002.S0277-9536(19)30324-7
    1. Lipschitz JM, Fernandez AC, Larson HE, Blaney CL, Meier KS, Redding CA, Prochaska JO, Paiva AL. Validation of decisional balance and self-efficacy measures for HPV vaccination in college women. Am J Health Promot. 2013;27(5):299–307. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.110606-QUAN-240.
    1. McComas KA, Trumbo CW. Source credibility in environmental health-risk controversies: application of Meyer's credibility index. Risk Anal. 2001 Jun;21(3):467–480. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.213126.
    1. Liu M, Zhang H, Huang H. Media exposure to COVID-19 information, risk perception, social and geographical proximity, and self-rated anxiety in China. BMC Public Health. 2020 Nov 04;20(1):1649. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09761-8. 10.1186/s12889-020-09761-8
    1. Bendau A, Petzold MB, Pyrkosch L, Mascarell Maricic L, Betzler F, Rogoll J, Große J, Ströhle A, Plag J. Associations between COVID-19 related media consumption and symptoms of anxiety, depression and COVID-19 related fear in the general population in Germany. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2021 Mar 20;271(2):283–291. doi: 10.1007/s00406-020-01171-6. 10.1007/s00406-020-01171-6
    1. Betsch C, Schmid P, Heinemeier D, Korn L, Holtmann C, Böhm R. Beyond confidence: development of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0208601. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208601. PONE-D-18-22026
    1. Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative 2018 National Survey of Children's Health: Guide to Topics and Questions. 2019. [2021-12-08]. .
    1. Hsieh H, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005 Nov;15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.15/9/1277
    1. Hallgren KA. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012;8(1):23–34. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023.
    1. Witte K. Fear control and danger control: a test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM) Commun Monogr. 2009 Jun 02;61(2):113–134. doi: 10.1080/03637759409376328.
    1. Quinn SC, Kumar S, Freimuth VS, Kidwell K, Musa D. Public willingness to take a vaccine or drug under Emergency Use Authorization during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Biosecur Bioterror. 2009 Sep;7(3):275–290. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2009.0041.
    1. Goldstein A, Clement S. 7 in 10 Americans Would Be Likely to Get a Coronavirus Vaccine, Post-ABC Poll Finds. 2020. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Li S, Feng B, Liao W, Pan W. Internet use, risk awareness, and demographic characteristics associated with engagement in preventive behaviors and testing: cross-sectional survey on COVID-19 in the United States. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 16;22(6):e19782. doi: 10.2196/19782. v22i6e19782
    1. Crane MA, Shermock KM, Omer SB, Romley JA. Change in reported adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic, April-November 2020. JAMA. 2021 Mar 02;325(9):883–885. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.0286. 2775686
    1. Jackson C, Newall M, Yi J. America's Reopening Shows Little Signs of Slowing Down. 2021. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Zhao E, Wu Q, Crimmins EM, Ailshire JA. Media trust and infection mitigating behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA. BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Oct;5(10):e003323. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003323. bmjgh-2020-003323
    1. Reisdorf B, Blank G, Bauer J, Cotten S, Robertson C, Knittel M. Information seeking patterns and COVID-19 in the United States. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media. 2021 Apr 26;1:1–38. doi: 10.51685/jqd.2021.003.
    1. Gilles I, Bangerter A, Clémence A, Green EGT, Krings F, Staerklé C, Wagner-Egger P. Trust in medical organizations predicts pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccination behavior and perceived efficacy of protection measures in the Swiss public. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011 Mar;26(3):203–210. doi: 10.1007/s10654-011-9577-2.
    1. Bish A, Michie S. Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: a review. Br J Health Psychol. 2010 Nov;15(Pt 4):797–824. doi: 10.1348/135910710X485826. bjhp807
    1. Pagliaro S, Sacchi S, Pacilli MG, Brambilla M, Lionetti F, Bettache K, Bianchi M, Biella M, Bonnot V, Boza M, Butera F, Ceylan-Batur S, Chong K, Chopova T, Crimston CR, Álvarez B, Cuadrado I, Ellemers N, Formanowicz M, Graupmann V, Gkinopoulos T, Kyung Jeong EH, Jasinskaja-Lahti I, Jetten J, Muhib Bin K, Mao Y, McCoy C, Mehnaz F, Minescu A, Sirlopú D, Simić A, Travaglino G, Uskul AK, Zanetti C, Zinn A, Zubieta E. Trust predicts COVID-19 prescribed and discretionary behavioral intentions in 23 countries. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0248334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248334. PONE-D-21-03505
    1. McCroskey JC, Teven JJ. Goodwill: a reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Commun Monogr. 2009 Jun 02;66(1):90–103. doi: 10.1080/03637759909376464.
    1. Lee S, Kim K, Koh J. Antecedents of news consumers' perceived information overload and news consumption pattern in the USA. Int J Contents. 2016 Sep 28;12(3):1–11. doi: 10.5392/IJoC.2016.12.3.001. doi: 10.5392/ijoc.2016.12.3.001.
    1. Cao X, Sun J. Exploring the effect of overload on the discontinuous intention of social media users: an S-O-R perspective. Comput Hum Behav. 2018 Apr;81:10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.035. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.035.
    1. Matthes J, Karsay K, Schmuck D, Stevic A. “Too much to handle”: impact of mobile social networking sites on information overload, depressive symptoms, and well-being. Comput Hum Behav. 2020 Apr;105:106217. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106217. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.106217.
    1. Baker SM, Petty RE. Majority and minority influence: source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67(1):5–19. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.5.
    1. Jensen ML, Averbeck JM, Zhang Z, Wright KB. Credibility of anonymous online product reviews: a language expectancy perspective. J Manage Inf Syst. 2014 Dec 08;30(1):293–324. doi: 10.2753/mis0742-1222300109.
    1. Miller MD, Burgoon M. The relationship between violations of expectations and the induction of resistance to persuasion. Human Commun Res. 1979 Jun;5(4):301–313. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00642.x.
    1. Clementson D, Pascual-Ferrá P, Beatty M. When does a presidential candidate seem presidential and trustworthy? Campaign messages through the lens of language expectancy theory. Pres Stud Q. 2016 Jul 28;46(3):592–617. doi: 10.1111/psq.12299. doi: 10.1111/psq.12299.
    1. Siegel J, Burgoon J. Expectancy theory approaches to prevention: violating adolescent expectations to increase the effectiveness of public service announcements. In: Crano WD, Burgoon M, editors. Mass Media and Drug Prevetion: Classic and Contemporary Theories and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. pp. 163–186.
    1. Laranjo L, Arguel A, Neves AL, Gallagher AM, Kaplan R, Mortimer N, Mendes GA, Lau AYS. The influence of social networking sites on health behavior change: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015 Jan;22(1):243–256. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002841. amiajnl-2014-002841
    1. Maher CA, Lewis LK, Ferrar K, Marshall S, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Vandelanotte C. Are health behavior change interventions that use online social networks effective? A systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Feb 14;16(2):e40. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2952. v16i2e40
    1. Valle CG, Tate DF, Mayer DK, Allicock M, Cai J. A randomized trial of a Facebook-based physical activity intervention for young adult cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2013 Sep 27;7(3):355–368. doi: 10.1007/s11764-013-0279-5.
    1. Brindal E, Freyne J, Saunders I, Berkovsky S, Smith G, Noakes M. Features predicting weight loss in overweight or obese participants in a web-based intervention: randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Dec 12;14(6):e173. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2156. v14i6e173
    1. Turner-McGrievy GM, Tate DF. Weight loss social support in 140 characters or less: use of an online social network in a remotely delivered weight loss intervention. Transl Behav Med. 2013 Sep;3(3):287–294. doi: 10.1007/s13142-012-0183-y. 183
    1. Trunfio M, Rossi S. Conceptualising and measuring social media engagement: a systematic literature review. Ital J Mark. 2021 Aug 11;2021(3):267–292. doi: 10.1007/s43039-021-00035-8.
    1. Muntinga DG, Moorman M, Smit EG. Introducing COBRAs. Int J Advert. 2015 Jan 07;30(1):13–46. doi: 10.2501/ija-30-1-013-046.
    1. Khan ML. Social media engagement: what motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Comput Hum Behav. 2017 Jan;66:236–247. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.024.
    1. Fernandes T, Castro A. Understanding drivers and outcomes of lurking vs. posting engagement behaviours in social media-based brand communities. J Mar Manage. 2020 Feb 10;36(7-8):660–681. doi: 10.1080/0267257x.2020.1724179.
    1. Perski O, Blandford A, West R, Michie S. Conceptualising engagement with digital behaviour change interventions: a systematic review using principles from critical interpretive synthesis. Transl Behav Med. 2017 Jun 13;7(2):254–267. doi: 10.1007/s13142-016-0453-1. 10.1007/s13142-016-0453-1
    1. Michie S, Yardley L, West R, Patrick K, Greaves F. Developing and evaluating digital interventions to promote behavior change in health and health care: recommendations resulting from an international workshop. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 29;19(6):e232. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7126. v19i6e232
    1. Short CE, DeSmet A, Woods C, Williams SL, Maher C, Middelweerd A, Müller AM, Wark PA, Vandelanotte C, Poppe L, Hingle MD, Crutzen R. Measuring engagement in eHealth and mHealth behavior change interventions: viewpoint of methodologies. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Nov 16;20(11):e292. doi: 10.2196/jmir.9397. v20i11e292
    1. Pagoto S, Waring M, Jake-Schoffman D, Goetz J, Michaels Z, Oleski J. What type of engagement predicts success in a Facebook weight loss group?. 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; January 3-6, 2018; Waikoloa Village, Hawaii. 2018.
    1. Agarwal R, Dugas M, Ramaprasad J, Luo J, Li G, Gao G. Socioeconomic privilege and political ideology are associated with racial disparity in COVID-19 vaccination. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Aug 17;118(33):e2107873118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2107873118. 2107873118
    1. Fridman A, Gershon R, Gneezy A. COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy: a longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 16;16(4):e0250123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250123. PONE-D-20-35660
    1. Sell T, Hosangadi D, Smith E, Trotochaud M, Vasudevan P, Gronvall G. National Priorities to Combat Misinformation and Disinformation for COVID-19 and Future Public Health Threats: a Call for a National Strategy. 2021. [2022-06-02]. .
    1. Kreps S, Kriner D. Good News and Bad News about COVID-19 Misinformation. [2022-08-01].
    1. Nan X, Madden K. HPV vaccine information in the blogosphere: how positive and negative blogs influence vaccine-related risk perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Health Commun. 2012;27(8):829–836. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2012.661348.
    1. Betsch C, Renkewitz F, Haase N. Effect of narrative reports about vaccine adverse events and bias-awareness disclaimers on vaccine decisions: a simulation of an online patient social network. Med Decis Making. 2013 Jan;33(1):14–25. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12452342.0272989X12452342
    1. McRee A, Reiter PL, Brewer NT. Parents' internet use for information about HPV vaccine. Vaccine. 2012 May 28;30(25):3757–3762. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.113. S0264-410X(11)01909-8
    1. Lawes-Wickwar S, Ghio D, Tang MY, Keyworth C, Stanescu S, Westbrook J, Jenkinson E, Kassianos AP, Scanlan D, Garnett N, Laidlaw L, Howlett N, Carr N, Stanulewicz N, Guest E, Watson D, Sutherland L, Byrne-Davis L, Chater A, Hart J, Armitage CJ, Shorter GW, Swanson V, Epton T. A rapid systematic review of public responses to health messages encouraging vaccination against infectious diseases in a pandemic or epidemic. Vaccines (Basel) 2021 Jan 20;9(2):72. doi: 10.3390/vaccines9020072. vaccines9020072

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться