Assessing the state of Web-based communication for public health: a systematic review

Background Communicating strategically is a key issue for health organisations and, over the past decade, healthcare communication via social media and websites has generated a great deal of studies. As for systematic reviews, there is, however, fragmentary evidence on this type of communication. Th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of public health 2022-10, Vol.32 (Supplement_3)
Hauptverfasser: Ceretti, E, Covolo, L, Cappellini, F, Nanni, A, Sorosina, S, Taranto, M, Gasparini, A, Castro, P De, Brusaferro, S, Gelatti, U
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue Supplement_3
container_start_page
container_title European journal of public health
container_volume 32
creator Ceretti, E
Covolo, L
Cappellini, F
Nanni, A
Sorosina, S
Taranto, M
Gasparini, A
Castro, P De
Brusaferro, S
Gelatti, U
description Background Communicating strategically is a key issue for health organisations and, over the past decade, healthcare communication via social media and websites has generated a great deal of studies. As for systematic reviews, there is, however, fragmentary evidence on this type of communication. The aim of this research was to summarise the evidence on Web institutional health communication for public health authorities to evaluate aim-specific key points based on existing studies. Methods Guided by the PRISMA statement, we conducted a comprehensive review across two electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) from 2011 until 7 October 2021, searching for studies investigating institutional health communication. Two independent researchers reviewed the articles for inclusion, and assessment of methodological quality was based on the Kmet appraisal checklist. Results 78 articles were selected. Most of the studies targeted health promotion/disease prevention (n = 35), followed by crisis communication (n = 24), general health (n = 13), and misinformation correction/health promotion (n = 6). Engagement and message framing were the most analysed aspects. Few studies focused on campaign effectiveness. Only 18 studies had an experimental design. Kmet evaluation was used to distinguish studies presenting a solid structure from lacking studies. In particular, considering the 0·75-point threshold, out of 74 studies, 28 were excluded (37·8% of the total). Studies above this threshold were used to identify a series of aim-specific and medium-specific suggestions, as communication strategies employed differ quite greatly. Conclusions Overall, findings suggest that no single strategy works best in the case of Web-based healthcare communication. The extreme variability of outcomes and the lack of a unitary measure for assessing the end-points of a specific campaign or study leads us to reconsider the tools we use to evaluate the efficacy of Web-based health communication. Key messages This systematic review provides an overview on Web-based health communication. Results suggest that no single strategy works best and the need to reassess its evaluation tools. Communicating strategically is key for health organisations. This systematic review analyses a corpus of texts, in an effort to summarise and analyse existing, albeit fragmentary, evidence.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/eurpub/ckac130.056
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2854902695</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/eurpub/ckac130.056</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2854902695</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2026-53e020dd820f8c8a1473eda911440f722108d5ab7c41299bb36121fbd0c4a36e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwA6wssQ4dP_JiV1W8pEpsqGBnOc6YpjRxsBNQ_x6j9ANYzSzOvVc6hFwzuGVQigWOvh-rhfnUhgm4hTQ7ITMmM5mIDN5P48-AJYxn_JxchLADgDQv-IxsliFgCE33QYct0jDoAamz9A2rpNIBa2pc245dY_TQuI5a52lc2jeGblHvh-0d1TQcwoBtBAz1-N3gzyU5s3of8Op452TzcP-6ekrWL4_Pq-U6MRx4lqQCgUNdFxxsYQrNZC6w1iVjUoLNOWdQ1KmuciMZL8uqEhnjzFY1GKlFhmJObqbe3ruvEcOgdm70XZxUvEhlGUfKNFJ8oox3IXi0qvdNq_1BMVB_-tSkTx31qagvhpIp5Mb-P_wvr3t02A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2854902695</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing the state of Web-based communication for public health: a systematic review</title><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ceretti, E ; Covolo, L ; Cappellini, F ; Nanni, A ; Sorosina, S ; Taranto, M ; Gasparini, A ; Castro, P De ; Brusaferro, S ; Gelatti, U</creator><creatorcontrib>Ceretti, E ; Covolo, L ; Cappellini, F ; Nanni, A ; Sorosina, S ; Taranto, M ; Gasparini, A ; Castro, P De ; Brusaferro, S ; Gelatti, U</creatorcontrib><description>Background Communicating strategically is a key issue for health organisations and, over the past decade, healthcare communication via social media and websites has generated a great deal of studies. As for systematic reviews, there is, however, fragmentary evidence on this type of communication. The aim of this research was to summarise the evidence on Web institutional health communication for public health authorities to evaluate aim-specific key points based on existing studies. Methods Guided by the PRISMA statement, we conducted a comprehensive review across two electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) from 2011 until 7 October 2021, searching for studies investigating institutional health communication. Two independent researchers reviewed the articles for inclusion, and assessment of methodological quality was based on the Kmet appraisal checklist. Results 78 articles were selected. Most of the studies targeted health promotion/disease prevention (n = 35), followed by crisis communication (n = 24), general health (n = 13), and misinformation correction/health promotion (n = 6). Engagement and message framing were the most analysed aspects. Few studies focused on campaign effectiveness. Only 18 studies had an experimental design. Kmet evaluation was used to distinguish studies presenting a solid structure from lacking studies. In particular, considering the 0·75-point threshold, out of 74 studies, 28 were excluded (37·8% of the total). Studies above this threshold were used to identify a series of aim-specific and medium-specific suggestions, as communication strategies employed differ quite greatly. Conclusions Overall, findings suggest that no single strategy works best in the case of Web-based healthcare communication. The extreme variability of outcomes and the lack of a unitary measure for assessing the end-points of a specific campaign or study leads us to reconsider the tools we use to evaluate the efficacy of Web-based health communication. Key messages This systematic review provides an overview on Web-based health communication. Results suggest that no single strategy works best and the need to reassess its evaluation tools. Communicating strategically is key for health organisations. This systematic review analyses a corpus of texts, in an effort to summarise and analyse existing, albeit fragmentary, evidence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1101-1262</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-360X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckac130.056</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Communication ; Design of experiments ; Disease prevention ; Evaluation ; Experimental design ; Health care ; Health education ; Health promotion ; Health services ; Literature reviews ; Messages ; Public health ; Quality assessment ; Reviews ; Social media ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>European journal of public health, 2022-10, Vol.32 (Supplement_3)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2026-53e020dd820f8c8a1473eda911440f722108d5ab7c41299bb36121fbd0c4a36e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,1598,27845,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ceretti, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Covolo, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cappellini, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nanni, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sorosina, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taranto, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gasparini, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castro, P De</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brusaferro, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gelatti, U</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing the state of Web-based communication for public health: a systematic review</title><title>European journal of public health</title><description>Background Communicating strategically is a key issue for health organisations and, over the past decade, healthcare communication via social media and websites has generated a great deal of studies. As for systematic reviews, there is, however, fragmentary evidence on this type of communication. The aim of this research was to summarise the evidence on Web institutional health communication for public health authorities to evaluate aim-specific key points based on existing studies. Methods Guided by the PRISMA statement, we conducted a comprehensive review across two electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) from 2011 until 7 October 2021, searching for studies investigating institutional health communication. Two independent researchers reviewed the articles for inclusion, and assessment of methodological quality was based on the Kmet appraisal checklist. Results 78 articles were selected. Most of the studies targeted health promotion/disease prevention (n = 35), followed by crisis communication (n = 24), general health (n = 13), and misinformation correction/health promotion (n = 6). Engagement and message framing were the most analysed aspects. Few studies focused on campaign effectiveness. Only 18 studies had an experimental design. Kmet evaluation was used to distinguish studies presenting a solid structure from lacking studies. In particular, considering the 0·75-point threshold, out of 74 studies, 28 were excluded (37·8% of the total). Studies above this threshold were used to identify a series of aim-specific and medium-specific suggestions, as communication strategies employed differ quite greatly. Conclusions Overall, findings suggest that no single strategy works best in the case of Web-based healthcare communication. The extreme variability of outcomes and the lack of a unitary measure for assessing the end-points of a specific campaign or study leads us to reconsider the tools we use to evaluate the efficacy of Web-based health communication. Key messages This systematic review provides an overview on Web-based health communication. Results suggest that no single strategy works best and the need to reassess its evaluation tools. Communicating strategically is key for health organisations. This systematic review analyses a corpus of texts, in an effort to summarise and analyse existing, albeit fragmentary, evidence.</description><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Design of experiments</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Experimental design</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health education</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Messages</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Social media</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>1101-1262</issn><issn>1464-360X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwA6wssQ4dP_JiV1W8pEpsqGBnOc6YpjRxsBNQ_x6j9ANYzSzOvVc6hFwzuGVQigWOvh-rhfnUhgm4hTQ7ITMmM5mIDN5P48-AJYxn_JxchLADgDQv-IxsliFgCE33QYct0jDoAamz9A2rpNIBa2pc245dY_TQuI5a52lc2jeGblHvh-0d1TQcwoBtBAz1-N3gzyU5s3of8Op452TzcP-6ekrWL4_Pq-U6MRx4lqQCgUNdFxxsYQrNZC6w1iVjUoLNOWdQ1KmuciMZL8uqEhnjzFY1GKlFhmJObqbe3ruvEcOgdm70XZxUvEhlGUfKNFJ8oox3IXi0qvdNq_1BMVB_-tSkTx31qagvhpIp5Mb-P_wvr3t02A</recordid><startdate>20221021</startdate><enddate>20221021</enddate><creator>Ceretti, E</creator><creator>Covolo, L</creator><creator>Cappellini, F</creator><creator>Nanni, A</creator><creator>Sorosina, S</creator><creator>Taranto, M</creator><creator>Gasparini, A</creator><creator>Castro, P De</creator><creator>Brusaferro, S</creator><creator>Gelatti, U</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>TOX</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20221021</creationdate><title>Assessing the state of Web-based communication for public health: a systematic review</title><author>Ceretti, E ; Covolo, L ; Cappellini, F ; Nanni, A ; Sorosina, S ; Taranto, M ; Gasparini, A ; Castro, P De ; Brusaferro, S ; Gelatti, U</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2026-53e020dd820f8c8a1473eda911440f722108d5ab7c41299bb36121fbd0c4a36e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Design of experiments</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Experimental design</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health education</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Messages</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Social media</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ceretti, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Covolo, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cappellini, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nanni, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sorosina, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taranto, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gasparini, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castro, P De</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brusaferro, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gelatti, U</creatorcontrib><collection>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>European journal of public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ceretti, E</au><au>Covolo, L</au><au>Cappellini, F</au><au>Nanni, A</au><au>Sorosina, S</au><au>Taranto, M</au><au>Gasparini, A</au><au>Castro, P De</au><au>Brusaferro, S</au><au>Gelatti, U</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing the state of Web-based communication for public health: a systematic review</atitle><jtitle>European journal of public health</jtitle><date>2022-10-21</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>Supplement_3</issue><issn>1101-1262</issn><eissn>1464-360X</eissn><abstract>Background Communicating strategically is a key issue for health organisations and, over the past decade, healthcare communication via social media and websites has generated a great deal of studies. As for systematic reviews, there is, however, fragmentary evidence on this type of communication. The aim of this research was to summarise the evidence on Web institutional health communication for public health authorities to evaluate aim-specific key points based on existing studies. Methods Guided by the PRISMA statement, we conducted a comprehensive review across two electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) from 2011 until 7 October 2021, searching for studies investigating institutional health communication. Two independent researchers reviewed the articles for inclusion, and assessment of methodological quality was based on the Kmet appraisal checklist. Results 78 articles were selected. Most of the studies targeted health promotion/disease prevention (n = 35), followed by crisis communication (n = 24), general health (n = 13), and misinformation correction/health promotion (n = 6). Engagement and message framing were the most analysed aspects. Few studies focused on campaign effectiveness. Only 18 studies had an experimental design. Kmet evaluation was used to distinguish studies presenting a solid structure from lacking studies. In particular, considering the 0·75-point threshold, out of 74 studies, 28 were excluded (37·8% of the total). Studies above this threshold were used to identify a series of aim-specific and medium-specific suggestions, as communication strategies employed differ quite greatly. Conclusions Overall, findings suggest that no single strategy works best in the case of Web-based healthcare communication. The extreme variability of outcomes and the lack of a unitary measure for assessing the end-points of a specific campaign or study leads us to reconsider the tools we use to evaluate the efficacy of Web-based health communication. Key messages This systematic review provides an overview on Web-based health communication. Results suggest that no single strategy works best and the need to reassess its evaluation tools. Communicating strategically is key for health organisations. This systematic review analyses a corpus of texts, in an effort to summarise and analyse existing, albeit fragmentary, evidence.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/eurpub/ckac130.056</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1101-1262
ispartof European journal of public health, 2022-10, Vol.32 (Supplement_3)
issn 1101-1262
1464-360X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2854902695
source Oxford Journals Open Access Collection; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PAIS Index; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Communication
Design of experiments
Disease prevention
Evaluation
Experimental design
Health care
Health education
Health promotion
Health services
Literature reviews
Messages
Public health
Quality assessment
Reviews
Social media
Systematic review
title Assessing the state of Web-based communication for public health: a systematic review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T05%3A04%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20the%20state%20of%20Web-based%20communication%20for%20public%20health:%20a%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20public%20health&rft.au=Ceretti,%20E&rft.date=2022-10-21&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=Supplement_3&rft.issn=1101-1262&rft.eissn=1464-360X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckac130.056&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2854902695%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2854902695&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/eurpub/ckac130.056&rfr_iscdi=true