The power of online social media in nutrition communication : The case of Whatdidsheeat?’ Thanit Vinitchagoon, CDT , Araya Sangtien, CDT, Buppha Saisin, CDT, Kanokphat Anantsuphasak, CDT, Administrators of ‘Whatdidsheeat?’ on facebook (http://www.facebook.com/whatdidsheeat) on the behalf of Dietitians of Chulalongkorn University
Introduction
What is social media?
Social media is a means of interactions among people in which they create, share, and exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks. It is one of the fastest growing media used to communicate to publics due to efficacy and cost-benefit.
(Ahlqvist T et al. Social Media Roadmaps. 2008.) Thank you for the graphics from
Popular Online Social Medias 1400 1200
1150
1000 800 600
359
400 200
215
0 Facebook
Google+
150
20
Twitter Instagram Pinterest Monthly Active Users (millions)
(Search Engine Journal. 2014.) Thank you for the graphics from
2 Reddit
Popular Online Social Medias in Thailand Instagram
0.8
Youtube
1.2
1.8
22.1
0
5 Facebook
10 Twitter
15 Youtube
(Zocial Inc. Thailand Zocial Awards 2014.) Thank you for the graphics from
20 Instagram
25
Uses of social media for health communication Uses of social media for health communication
Social media user General public
Patients
Health professionals
Provide health information on a range of conditions
X
X
X
Provide answers to medical questions
X
X
X
Facilitate dialogue between patients to patients, and patients and health professionals
X
X
Collect data on patient experiences and opinions
X
X
X
X
Reduce stigma
X
X
Provide online consultation
X
X
Used for health intervention, health promotion and health education
(Moorhead SA et al. J Med Internet Res. 2013.)
X
‘Whatdidsheeat?’ on facebook
Objectives
Objectives • To study and evaluate the efficacy of pathways of nutrition communication using online social media. • To analyze topics of interests by users that have been shared both in public and private through online participation.
Methods
Data collection & Analysis Data collection from ‘Whatdidsheeat?’ on facebook
(http://www.facebook.com/whatdidsheeat) Efficacy
Fanpage statistics
Comparison to average engagement rate (AER) of averages
Cost-effectiveness Topics of Interest
Content analysis
Statistics of people reach per cost paid
Comparison between different presentation styles
Comparison to cost of traditional health promotion
Content analysis
Comparison between public and private participation
Results and Discussion
Lifetime Total Likes People(s) 160000
133180
140000
123679 107877 129529
120000
136561
135413
140448
90783 81402 98498 74962 68362 85777 78020 51589 72358
100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0
0 Date
User Demographic % 40
Male 24%
34
35
28
30
Female 76%
25 20 15
10
10 5 0
3
9
8
2
1
13-17
18-24
25-34
2 0.48
35-44 Female
45-54 Male
0.46 0.15 0.45 0.23
55-64
65+
Age
Types of Posts (n=366) 300 250
Posts
200
100.0 80.0
69.4
60.0
150
100 50
0
40.0
24.0 254
88
Photos
Status Types of Posts
Amount %
6.6 24 Links
20.0
0.0
Key performance indicators and metrics related to social media use in health promotion Key performance indicator
Definition
Metrics
Reach
The number of people who have contact with the social media application and the related content
Fans/page likes, number of people participating in discussions, unsubscribed fans, number of followers, demographics of followers, virality (growth rate)
Engagement (low)
The number of people who acknowledge agreement or preference for content
Ratings, likes on Facebook posts, like rates, frequency of favorites, likes or dislikes on videos
Engagement (medium)
The number of people who participate in creating, sharing, and using content and the degree to which they influence others
Posts or tweets by users, comments on posts, comment rate, number of threads on discussion topics, frequency of new discussions, mentions, number of times a post was shared
(Neiger BL et al. Health Promot Pract. 2012.)
Types of posts and attention Number of unique users (peoples)
45000
*
*
*
40000
35000 30000 25000
* *
20000 15000 10000
24660
29266
17849
5000
5851
0 -5000
*= different at p<.05
Reach Photo
Status
Link
1714
Engagement
911
Average engagement rate (AER)
AER =
(
Total engagements (per month) Total posts (per month)
Total likes (per month)
) x 100
Average lifetime engagement rate = 3.23%
AER of Facebook pages by size (by ) Average engagement rate (%)
3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00%
0.50%
3.11% 1.27% 0.89% 0.65% 1.11%
0.77% 0.52% 0.34% 0.61%
0.00% 1-9 999
10 000-99 999
Socialbaker’s data (1/1 – 31/1/2013)1
0.38%
0.19% 0.45%
100 000-499 999
0.33%
0.13% 0.38%
500 000-999 999
Socialbaker’s data (9/7 – 7/8/2013)2
0.11% 0.36%
1 000 000+
Whatdidsheeat?
Socialbaker’s data (16/1 – 16/2/2014)3
1
(Socialbaker. The average page engagement rates of Facebook pages categorized by number of fans. 2012.)
2
(Socialbaker. The average page engagement rates of 21 634 Facebook pages categorized by number of fans. 2013.)
3 (Socialbaker. The average page engagement rates of
0.27%
43 465 Facebook pages categorized by number of fans. 2014.)
Lifetime Engaged Users 50000
Total engagement (people)
45000 40000 35000
30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
No. of post since page initiated (n=366)
350
400
Most
Least
Landscape infographic
Portrait infographic
Hot Topic
Not so interesting Topic
Less text
A lot of text
Good example of illustration
Unclear example illustration
(Deering MF. The Limits of Human Vision.) (Levin JR, Knowledge acquisition from text and prose. 1989) (McInnis D. Marketing Profs: Marketing Resources for Marketing Professionals. 2010) (Hartman A. Telephone Interview. 2010)
Estimated people reached by promoting cost Estimated people reached (people)
500000 450000
Average cost per extra people to reach a post = 0.03 Baht
400000
345000
350000 300000 225000
250000 138000
150000 100000 0
260000
185000
200000
50000
440000
1235
4050
30
100
21000
500
44000
1000
82500
2000
4000
6000
8000 10000 15000 20000
Cost paid for â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;boostingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; post (Baht) Estimated average people reached
Exampled using target population = Adults reported age between 18-64 using facebook (n=8,500,000)
Cost of health promotion services in state hospital and health centers in Thailand* 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
649.4
188 119.6
55.1 25.2
Maternal and Nutrition child
311.987.5
146.1
56.7 91.5
92 24.1
Family Home health Health Health planning care education consultation
(Singweratham N, 2002)
(Teanpleung W, 2006)
(Singweratham N. 2002.) Thesis submitted for M.Sc. (Community Medicine) Chulalongkorn University Data from health promotion campaigns being promoted by 72 hospitals from 2001 to 2002 (Teanpleung W, 2006.) Thesis submitted for M.Sc. (Community Medicine) Chulalongkorn University Data from health promotion campaigns being promoted by community health center in Prachinburi during the year 2006.
75.26 28.2
Dental health promotion
Studies reporting cost-effectiveness of using Facebook to recruit people to online nutrition education Picture
Cost paid
Cost per reach
Cost per click
Cost per completed participation
$1197.45
0.009$
$1.4
$25.5
$1321.52
0.007$
$1.66
$18.1
(Lohse B et al. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2013.)
Method of recruiting
Cost per recruiting
Cost per completed participation
Flyers, Phone calls, Postcards, Mileage
$51.69
$94.36
(Lohse B et al. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012.)
Topics of Interest % 40
*
* 34.7
35
31.6
30 26.1 25
21.9
20
17.2 17.4
15 10
8.1
5 1.0
2.0
2.3 2.9
4.2
3.7
3.1 2.9
5.5
5.7
0.7
2.1
2.9
1.6 2.1
0
Calories & Food Safety Nutrition for Dietary Nutrition Sugars Weight Supplements Education Control for Weight Control
Fad Diets / Dietary Patterns
Messages (n=497)2
*= different at p<.05
Medical Dietary Basic Nutrition Supplements Nutrition Therapy / Functional Foods
Posts (n=922)2
Nutrition for Nutrition for Weight Gain Exercise
Topic
Example of questions asked about calories and weight management Public (wall post)
Private (direct message)
Limitations of using social media for health communication Social media user General public
Patients
Health professionals
Lack of reliability
X
X
X
Quality of concerns
X
X
X
Lack of confidentiality & privacy
X
X
X
Often unaware of the risks of disclosing personal information online
X
X
Risk associated with communicating harmful or incorrect advice using social media
X
X
Information overload
X
X
Not sure how to correctly apply information found online to their personal health situation
X
X
Adverse health consequences/ Negative health behaviors
X
Limitations of social media for health communication
(Moorhead SA et al. J Med Internet Res. 2013.)
Conclusion
Conclusion 1. 2. 3.
Nutrition communication using social media is straightforward and cost-effective in terms of reaching people. Photo posts could generate highest engagement comparing with others, if the topic of information and illustration works. Topics that interest Thai users are mostly about calories, sugars, and body weight.
Thank you for your attention Special thanks to all ‘Dietitians of Chula’ !!