User Experiences With a Moderated Facebook Group to Promote Vaccination.

PURPOSE: To examine user experiences in a moderated Facebook group intervention aimed at Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine promotion. DESIGN: Facebook group members were given 2-3 vaccination posts/day for 28 days (four weeks). Posts were aimed at educating about COVID-19 vaccination, soliciting concerns around COVID-19 vaccination, and engaging members. Participants were surveyed about their experience at four weeks. SETTING: Moderated Facebook group. PARTICIPANTS: Unvaccinated individuals who were randomized to the intervention group and completed four week follow-up (N = 216, 82.1%). METHOD: After four weeks, participants rated their experience in the Facebook group (eg, program satisfaction) and provided open-text responses about their satisfaction with the group. Free-text responses were dual coded and emergent themes were examined. RESULTS: On average, participants were 37.0 years old (SD = 10.3), majority female (70.9%), and white (79.7%). The majority of participants were satisfied with the group (76.7%), agreed that other people were friendly (M = 5.58/7), and felt safe discussing health information (M = 3.96/5). Open-text responses revealed that participants liked the program because they thought the information was useful (27.7%), other members were friendly (16.1%), and the group was a safe place (13.8%). While many responded that there was nothing they did not like about the program (37.6%), nearly one-third (31.9%) reported disliking the program because it appeared to be too much in favor of vaccination and because other members came across as rude (7.1%). Those with conservative political views were less likely to be satisfied with the group (P = .04). CONCLUSION: Facebook groups represent an acceptable way to engage participants to improve vaccination against COVID-19. Some aspects of the Facebook group could be improved for future iterations.

Empathic Engagement With the COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitant in Private Facebook Groups: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine misinformation has been widely spread on social media, but attempts to combat it have not taken advantage of the attributes of social media platforms for health education. METHODS: The objective was to test the efficacy of moderated social media discussions about COVID-19 vaccines in private Facebook groups. Unvaccinated U.S. adults were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk and randomized. In the intervention group, moderators posted two informational posts per day for 4 weeks and engaged in relationship-building interactions with group members. In the control group, participants received a referral to Facebook's COVID-19 Information Center. Follow-up surveys with participants (N = 478) were conducted 6 weeks post-enrollment. RESULTS: At 6 weeks follow-up, no differences were found in vaccination rates. Intervention participants were more likely to show improvements in their COVID-19 vaccination intentions (vs. stay same or decline) compared with control (p = .03). They also improved more in their intentions to encourage others to vaccinate for COVID-19. There were no differences in COVID-19 vaccine confidence or intentions between groups. General vaccine and responsibility to vaccinate were higher in the intervention compared with control. Most participants in the intervention group reported high levels of satisfaction. Participants engaged with content (e.g., commented, reacted) 11.8 times on average over the course of 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging with vaccine-hesitant individuals in private Facebook groups improved some COVID-19 vaccine-related beliefs and represents a promising strategy.

Trust in public health institutions moderates the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine discussion groups on Facebook.

BACKGROUND: Distrust and partisan identity are theorized to undermine health communications. We examined the role of these factors on the efficacy of discussion groups intended to promote vaccine uptake. METHOD: We analyzed survey data from unvaccinated Facebook users (N = 371) living in the US between January and April 2022. Participants were randomly assigned to Facebook discussion groups (intervention) or referred to Facebook's COVID-19 Information Center (control). We used Analysis of Covariance to test if the intervention was more effective at changing vaccination intentions and beliefs compared to the control in subgroups based on participants' partisan identity, political views, and information trust views. RESULTS: We found a significant interaction between the intervention and trust in public health institutions (PHIs) for improving intentions to vaccinate (P = .04), intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (P = .03), and vaccine confidence beliefs (P = .01). Among participants who trusted PHIs, those in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (P = .008) and intentions to encourage others to vaccinate (P = .002) compared to the control. Among non-conservatives, participants in the intervention had higher posttest intentions to vaccinate (P = .048). The intervention was more effective at improving intentions to encourage others to vaccinate within the subgroups of Republicans (P = .03), conservatives (P = .02), and participants who distrusted government (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Facebook discussion groups were more effective for people who trusted PHIs and non-conservatives. Health communicators may need to segment health messaging and develop strategies around trust views.