April 4-6, 2024 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Innovations in Health Communication
Innovations in Health Communication
Abstract: Efficacy-Focused and Autonomy-Supportive Messaging in Social Media Vaccine Campaigns: Insights From a Facebook Split Test
Objective: This study investigates responses to efficacy-focused and autonomy-supportive messaging strategies in social media vaccine campaigns. A critical aspect underpinning vaccine hesitancy is the tension between the increasing belief in 'free choice about vaccination' and the perception of a lack of autonomy over vaccination decisions. Our research aims to compare messages informed by the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) and Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and explore how they influence audience engagement and sentiment differently.
Methods: We employed a Facebook A/B Split Test (FBST) to operationalize and test two distinct message types in a Midwestern state's social media vaccine campaign. The EPPM-informed message emphasized response efficacy and self-efficacy, while the SDT-informed message centered on autonomy and personal choice. Both messages were designed under a high threat level, targeting Facebook users aged ≥18 years in 17 micropolitan areas. The primary outcome measure was the click-through rate (CTR) to a pro-vaccine website, supplemented by a content analysis of user comments for sentiment and thematic exploration.
Results: The results revealed that the SDT-informed message, supporting autonomy and personal choice, generated a higher click-through rate (1.11%) and more cost-efficient click rates, particularly among users aged ≥65 years, compared to the EPPM-informed message (CTR of 0.79%). Logistic regression analyses indicated that users exposed to the SDT-informed message were significantly more likely to click the link across various demographics. However, the EPPM-informed message was found to be more cost-effective for younger users (18-64 years old). Content analysis of comments showed a predominant anti-vaccine sentiment regardless of the message type, challenging the expectation that autonomy-supportive messaging would reduce negative vaccine attitudes, also indicating the prevalence of vocal anti-vaccine communities online. The comments reflected themes of mistrust, safety concerns, efficacy doubts, and perceived threats to personal freedom, highlighting the complex interplay of factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy.
Conclusion: This study underscores the potential of autonomy-supportive messaging in enhancing audience engagement in vaccine promotion campaigns on social media, especially among older demographics. It suggests the need for a nuanced understanding of demographic responses to different message types. The findings also indicate that addressing deep-rooted trust issues appears critical in vaccine communication. These insights can inform the development of more effective public health messaging strategies, particularly in the context of an increasingly polarized and misinformation-saturated online environment. Our study implements messages informed by theoretical constructs as real-life advertisements on a widely used social media platform. Therefore, our findings offer ecologically valid insights complementing previous studies conducted in controlled laboratory settings or through paid online surveys. Future research should focus on the impact of message framing on actual vaccine uptake to comprehensively understand the efficacy of different communication strategies in public health campaigns.
Methods: We employed a Facebook A/B Split Test (FBST) to operationalize and test two distinct message types in a Midwestern state's social media vaccine campaign. The EPPM-informed message emphasized response efficacy and self-efficacy, while the SDT-informed message centered on autonomy and personal choice. Both messages were designed under a high threat level, targeting Facebook users aged ≥18 years in 17 micropolitan areas. The primary outcome measure was the click-through rate (CTR) to a pro-vaccine website, supplemented by a content analysis of user comments for sentiment and thematic exploration.
Results: The results revealed that the SDT-informed message, supporting autonomy and personal choice, generated a higher click-through rate (1.11%) and more cost-efficient click rates, particularly among users aged ≥65 years, compared to the EPPM-informed message (CTR of 0.79%). Logistic regression analyses indicated that users exposed to the SDT-informed message were significantly more likely to click the link across various demographics. However, the EPPM-informed message was found to be more cost-effective for younger users (18-64 years old). Content analysis of comments showed a predominant anti-vaccine sentiment regardless of the message type, challenging the expectation that autonomy-supportive messaging would reduce negative vaccine attitudes, also indicating the prevalence of vocal anti-vaccine communities online. The comments reflected themes of mistrust, safety concerns, efficacy doubts, and perceived threats to personal freedom, highlighting the complex interplay of factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy.
Conclusion: This study underscores the potential of autonomy-supportive messaging in enhancing audience engagement in vaccine promotion campaigns on social media, especially among older demographics. It suggests the need for a nuanced understanding of demographic responses to different message types. The findings also indicate that addressing deep-rooted trust issues appears critical in vaccine communication. These insights can inform the development of more effective public health messaging strategies, particularly in the context of an increasingly polarized and misinformation-saturated online environment. Our study implements messages informed by theoretical constructs as real-life advertisements on a widely used social media platform. Therefore, our findings offer ecologically valid insights complementing previous studies conducted in controlled laboratory settings or through paid online surveys. Future research should focus on the impact of message framing on actual vaccine uptake to comprehensively understand the efficacy of different communication strategies in public health campaigns.