Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 13;24(9):e38541.
doi: 10.2196/38541.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Internet-Based Communication for Public Health: Systematic Review

Elisabetta Ceretti #  1 , Loredana Covolo #  1 , Francesca Cappellini  1 , Alberto Nanni  2 , Sara Sorosina  2 , Andrea Beatini  2 , Mirella Taranto  3 , Arianna Gasparini  3 , Paola De Castro  3 , Silvio Brusaferro  3 , Umberto Gelatti  1
Affiliations

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Internet-Based Communication for Public Health: Systematic Review

Elisabetta Ceretti et al. J Med Internet Res. .

Abstract

Background: Communicating strategically is a key issue for health organizations. Over the past decade, health care communication via social media and websites has generated a great deal of studies examining different realities of communication strategies. However, when it comes to systematic reviews, there is fragmentary evidence on this type of communication.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on web institutional health communication for public health authorities to evaluate possible aim-specific key points based on these existing studies.

Methods: Guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, we conducted a comprehensive review across 2 electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) from January 1, 2011, to October 7, 2021, searching for studies investigating institutional health communication. In total, 2 independent researchers (AN and SS) reviewed the articles for inclusion, and the assessment of methodological quality was based on the Kmet appraisal checklist.

Results: A total of 78 articles were selected. Most studies (35/78, 45%) targeted health promotion and disease prevention, followed by crisis communication (24/78, 31%), general health (13/78, 17%), and misinformation correction and health promotion (6/78, 8%). Engagement and message framing were the most analyzed aspects. Few studies (14/78, 18%) focused on campaign effectiveness. Only 23% (18/78) of the studies had an experimental design. The Kmet evaluation was used to distinguish studies presenting a solid structure from lacking studies. In particular, considering the 0.75-point threshold, 36% (28/78) of the studies were excluded. Studies above this threshold were used to identify a series of aim-specific and medium-specific suggestions as the communication strategies used differed greatly.

Conclusions: Overall, the findings suggest that no single strategy works best in the case of web-based health care communication. The extreme variability of outcomes and the lack of a unitary measure for assessing the end points of a specific campaign or study lead us to reconsider the tools we use to evaluate the efficacy of web-based health communication.

Keywords: campaigns; communication; efficacy; exchange; health care; health information; internet-based; internet-based communication; public health; social media; systematic review; web-based; websites.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart for this systematic review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flowchart of key points.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Sandhu S. Strategic communication: an institutional perspective. Int J Strategic Commun. 2009 Apr 10;3(2):72–92. doi: 10.1080/15531180902805429. - DOI
    1. Hallahan K, Holtzhausen D, van Ruler B, Verčič D, Sriramesh K. Defining strategic communication. Int J Strategic Commun. 2007 Mar 22;1(1):3–35. doi: 10.1080/15531180701285244. - DOI
    1. Xiao N, Sharman R, Rao H, Upadhyaya S. Factors influencing online health information search: an empirical analysis of a national cancer-related survey. Decision Support Syst. 2014 Jan;57:417–27. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2012.10.047. - DOI
    1. Global Digital population as of January 2021. Statista. [2021-11-17]. https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population -worldwide/
    1. Bennett GG, Glasgow R. The delivery of public health interventions via the internet: actualizing their potential. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:273–92. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100235. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources