“Scientific evidence is very important for me”: The impact of behavioral intention and the wording of user inquiries on replies and recommendations in a health-related online forum

Good reasons for bad behavior: a randomized controlled experiment on the impact of narrative reading and writing on empathic concern, perspective-taking, and attitude

Background

Empathic concern and perspective-taking may contribute to avoiding stigmatization of adverse health behavior. Narrative writing has been shown to be effective in promoting perspective-taking and empathy. But since narrative writing is time consuming, we tested in the present study narrative reading as an alternative, more parsimonious approach.

Methods

In a randomized controlled experiment, we compared writing a narrative text about a fictitious person who displays disapproved of health behavior to reading such a text and to a control condition in which participants wrote about an unrelated topic. With a sample of n = 194 participants, we investigated the impact of writing and reading a narrative text on promoting empathic concern and perspective-taking as well as on attitude change.

Results

We found that both writing and reading a narrative text about the fictitious character increased empathic concern, F(1, 191) = 32.85, p < 0.001, part. η2 = 0.15, and perspective-taking, F(1, 191) = 24.76, p < 0.001, part. η2 = 0.12, more strongly than writing about an unrelated topic. Writing and reading a narrative text also resulted in a more positive attitude toward this person, F(1, 191) = 17.63, p < 0.001, part. η2 = 0.08. Simply reading a narrative text was equally efficient as narrative writing with respect to empathic concern, p = 0.581, perspective-taking, p = 0.629, and attitude, p = 0.197.

Conclusion

The finding that narrative reading is as effective as narrative writing suggests that the readers appear to be able to comprehend and engage with the story being told. When narrative reading is as effective as narrative writing, it can succeed with reduced effort in increasing empathic concern, perspective-taking, and attitude. We discuss the benefits of this approach for reducing stigmatization of adverse health behavior.

#Antivaccination on Instagram: A Computational Analysis of Hashtag Activism through Photos and Public Responses

A dramatic increase has been registered in the number of social media posts in photo form as well as in hashtag activism. Hashtags, which manifest thoughts and feelings clearly and concisely, originated on Twitter, where the length of a post is limited; their use, however, has expanded into other social media services, including Instagram. Hashtags, which make it easy to find and express support for posts of interest, have been widely used for online activism, although they have been criticized for fostering confirmation bias. Moreover, hashtag activism in photo form has been relatively understudied. This research analyzed Instagram photos with antivaccination hashtags as an example of hashtag activism through photos. In addition, we examined how the photo features were related to public response, which was manifested via engagement and comment sentiment. The results suggest that the photos which were categorized into “text” took the largest share. It was also found that the major way of claiming was to imprint key messages that persuade people not to vaccinate with remarks from professionals on photos and provide a source of supporting information in the post text with hashtags of antivaccine intention. Various photo features showed associations with engagement and comment sentiment, but the directions of correlation were usually the opposite: these results suggest that engagement and comment sentiment are separate domains that reveal different public responses.

Modeling Impact of Word of Mouth and E-Government on Online Social Presence during COVID-19 Outbreak: A Multi-Mediation Approach

Although social presence plays an essential role under general conditions, its role becomes significant for societal protection during the quarantine period in epidemic outbreak. In this study, we attempted to identify the role of E-government and COVID-19 word of mouth in terms of their direct impact on online social presence during the outbreak as well as their impacts mediated by epidemic protection and attitudes toward epidemic outbreaks. For this purpose, a unique multi-mediation model is proposed to provide a new direction for research in the field of epidemic outbreaks and their control. Through random sampling, an online survey was conducted and data from 683participants were analyzed. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was used to test the relationships between the variables of interest. The study results revealed that the roles of E-government and COVID-19 word of mouth are positively related to online social presence during the outbreak. Epidemic protection and attitude toward epidemic outbreak were found to positively moderate the impact of the role of E-government and COVID-19 word of mouth on online social presence during the outbreak. The key findings of this study have both practical and academic implications.

"Clicks, likes, shares and comments" a systematic review of breast cancer screening discourse in social media

BACKGROUND

Unsatisfactory participation rate at population based organised breast cancer screening is a long standing problem. Social media, with 3.2 billion users in 2019, is potentially an important site of breast cancer related discourse. Determining whether these platforms might be used as channels by screening providers to reach under-screened women may have considerable public health significance.

OBJECTIVES

By systematically reviewing original research studies on breast cancer related social media discourse, we had two aims: first, to assess the volume, participants and content of breast screening social media communication and second, to find out whether social media can be used by screening organisers as a channel of patient education.

METHODS

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). After searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Springer and Ebsco, 17 studies were found that met our criteria. A systematic narrative framework was used for data synthesis. Owing to the high degree of heterogeneity in social media channels, outcomes and measurement included in this study, a meta-analytic approach was not appropriate.

RESULTS

The volume of breast cancer related social media discourse is considerable. The majority of participants are lay individuals as opposed to healthcare professionals or advocacy groups. The lay misunderstandings surrounding the harms and benefits of mammography is well mirrored in the content of social media discourse. Although there is criticism, breast cancer screening sentiment on the social media ranges from the neutral to the positive. Social media is suitable for offering peer emotional support for potential participants.

CONCLUSION

Dedicated breast screening websites operated by screening organisers would ensure much needed quality controlled information and also provide space for reliable question and answer forums, the sharing of personal experience and the provision of peer and professional support.

The Impact of Perceived Etiology, Treatment Type, and Wording of Treatment Information on the Assessment of Gastritis Treatments

How patients assess the suitability of a certain therapy for treating a disease depends on a variety of influencing factors. Three key factors are people's subjective perceptions of a disease, the type of treatment, and the kind of communication used to convey information. The study presented here was a randomized controlled experiment in which we examined these three factors. We used a mixed design where we manipulated perceived etiology of gastritis (biopsychosocial vs. biomedical) as a between-group factor, and treatment type (behavioral vs. pharmacological) and wording of treatment information (holistic vs. scientific) as within-group factors. We found that gastritis treatments that matched the perceived etiology of the illness were assessed to be more effective. Moreover, treatments that matched the perceived etiology enhanced participants' intention to undergo the treatment themselves and their willingness to recommend it to a person close to them. Finally, participants' intention to undergo the treatment was also enhanced when the wording of the treatment information matched the perceived etiology. We discuss the implications of our findings in terms of health communication and patient education.

How Experts' Use of Medical Technical Jargon in Different Types of Online Health Forums Affects Perceived Information Credibility: Randomized Experiment With Laypersons

Background

Online health forums are widely used, but the quality of advice differs as much as the knowledge backgrounds of the audience members who receive the advice. It is important to understand how people judge the information given online. In line with the communication accommodation theory (CAT), online forums represent specific social contexts of communication which can present either accommodative or nonaccommodative language to an audience. Accordingly, use of accommodative or nonaccommodative language might affect people’s perceived trust in the communicator.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate how experts who use accommodative (vs nonaccommodative) language are evaluated by passive users of an online forum.

Methods

Participants (n=98) took part in an online experiment and read experts’ posts about 10 nutrition myths. Following a 2 x 2 mixed design, experts’ posts were written using either low or high amounts of medical technical jargon (MTJ) (within factor) and were directed at different audiences (mainly other medical experts [in a professional forum] vs a user group mainly comprising laypersons [in an advisory forum]) (between factor). Accommodation occurred where experts used high amounts of MTJ to address other medical experts in the professional forum; it also occurred when experts used low amounts of MTJ to address laypersons in the advisory forum. Conversely, nonaccommodation occurred when experts used high amounts of MTJ in the advisory forum and low amounts of MTJ in the professional forum. In each condition, participants evaluated the credibility of the information, the trustworthiness of the experts, and the accommodation by the experts.

Results

Overall, participants judged the credibility of information to be higher when experts used MTJ that was accommodative to the designated audience, F_1,95=3.10, P=.04, η_p²=.031. In addition, participants judged the experts in professional forums to be more trustworthy than experts in advisory forums (all F_1,96≥3.54, P ≤.03, η_p²≥.036). Moreover, participants rated experts who used high amounts of MTJ to have higher competence (F_1,96=37.54, P<.001, η_p²=.28], lower integrity (F_1,96=10.77, P=.001, η_p²=.101), and lower benevolence (F_1,96=9.75, P=.002, η_p²=.092), as well as to have lower perceived accommodation to the audience (all F_1,96≥72.17, P<.001, η_p²≥.43) compared with experts who used low MTJ.

Conclusions

To provide health information online that is perceived as credible, experts should consider using similar language as the language used by the addressed audience. As it is often impossible to determine the exact makeup of an online audience, further research might investigate whether having experts explicitly declare which audience they intend to address can help people to more reliably assess an expert’s trustworthiness. Furthermore, as people assess information differently depending on the context of online communication, it would be valuable for research to consider other aspects of the context beyond those of the audience.