4.7 Article

How Do Dieticians on Instagram Teach? The Potential of the Kirkpatrick Model in the Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Nutritional Education in Social Media

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13062005

关键词

nutritional education; health promotion; Kirkpatrick Model; dieticians; Instagram

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the Instagram profiles of ten dieticians providing nutritional education for their followers, using the Kirkpatrick Model and New World Kirkpatrick Model. The findings showed that the nutritional education provided through social media was effective in meeting followers' satisfaction, commitment, and content relevance, with the NWKM additions being more applicable to Levels 1 and 2.
The growing popularity of health education on social media indicates the need for its appropriate evaluation. This paper aims to present the potential of the Kirkpatrick Model (KM) with New World Kirkpatrick Model (NWKM) additions to evaluate the nutritional education provided by dieticians via Instagram. Instagram profiles of ten dieticians providing nutritional education for their followers were analyzed in March and April 2021. The study sample included profiles of both macro- and micro-influencers. The analyzed quantitative data included Instagram Engagement Rate and the number of likes and comments per post. The qualitative analysis of the comments was performed following the theoretical framework provided by the KM and NWKM. Collected data showed followers' satisfaction, commitment, and relevance of the presented content, fulfilling the Level 1 of NWKM. Level 2 of NWKM was represented by 4 out of 5 dimensions (knowledge, attitude, confidence, commitment). No comments were found only for skills. Both Levels 3 (Behavior) and 4 (Results) of the KM were met. However, the use of the NWKM for them seems limited. The KM can be used to evaluate nutritional education on social media. The NWKM additions seem applicable mostly for Levels 1 and 2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据