4.3 Article

Social Media in Communicating Health Information: An Analysis of Facebook Groups Related to Hypertension

Journal

PREVENTING CHRONIC DISEASE
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

CENTERS DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION
DOI: 10.5888/pcd12.140265

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction We studied Facebook groups related to hypertension to characterize their objectives, subject matter, member sizes, geographical boundaries, level of activity, and user-generated content. Methods We performed a systematic search among open Facebook groups using the keywords hypertension, high blood pressure, raised blood pressure, and blood pressure. We extracted relevant data from each group's content and developed a coding and categorizing scheme for the whole data set. Stepwise logistic regression was used to explore factors independently associated with each group's level of activity. Results We found 187 hypertension-related Facebook groups containing 8,966 members. The main objective of most (59.9%) Facebook groups was to create hypertension awareness, and 11.2% were created primarily to support patients and caregivers. Among the topdisplayed, most recent posts (n = 164), 21.3% were focused on product or service promotion, whereas one-fifth of posts were related to hypertension-awareness information. Each Facebook group's level of activity was independently associated with group size (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.03), presence of likes on the most recent wall post (AOR, 3.55, 95% CI, 1.41-8.92), and presence of attached files on the group wall (AOR, 5.01, 95% CI, 1.25-20.1). Conclusion The primary objective of most of the hypertension-related Facebook groups observed in this study was awareness creation. Compared with the whole Facebook community, the total number of hypertension-related Facebook groups and their users was small and the groups were less active.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available