Tweet for Behavior Change: Using Social Media for the Dissemination of Public Health Messages.

BACKGROUND: Social media public health campaigns have the advantage of tailored messaging at low cost and large reach, but little is known about what would determine their feasibility as tools for inducing attitude and behavior change. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of designing, implementing, and evaluating a social media-enabled intervention for skin cancer prevention. METHODS: A quasi-experimental feasibility study used social media (Twitter) to disseminate different message "frames" related to care in the sun and cancer prevention. Phase 1 utilized the Northern Ireland cancer charity's Twitter platform (May 1 to July 14, 2015). Following a 2-week "washout" period, Phase 2 commenced (August 1 to September 30, 2015) using a bespoke Twitter platform. Phase 2 also included a Thunderclap, whereby users allowed their social media accounts to automatically post a bespoke message on their behalf. Message frames were categorized into 5 broad categories: humor, shock or disgust, informative, personal stories, and opportunistic. Seed users with a notable following were contacted to be "influencers" in retweeting campaign content. A pre- and postintervention Web-based survey recorded skin cancer prevention knowledge and attitudes in Northern Ireland (population 1.8 million). RESULTS: There were a total of 417,678 tweet impressions, 11,213 engagements, and 1211 retweets related to our campaign. Shocking messages generated the greatest impressions (shock, n=2369; informative, n=2258; humorous, n=1458; story, n=1680), whereas humorous messages generated greater engagement (humorous, n=148; shock, n=147; story, n=117; informative, n=100) and greater engagement rates compared with story tweets. Informative messages, resulted in the greatest number of shares (informative, n=17; humorous, n=10; shock, n=9; story, n=7). The study findings included improved knowledge of skin cancer severity in a pre- and postintervention Web-based survey, with greater awareness that skin cancer is the most common form of cancer (preintervention: 28.4% [95/335] vs postintervention: 39.3% [168/428] answered "True") and that melanoma is most serious (49.1% [165/336] vs 55.5% [238/429]). The results also show improved attitudes toward ultraviolet (UV) exposure and skin cancer with a reduction in agreement that respondents "like to tan" (60.5% [202/334] vs 55.6% [238/428]). CONCLUSIONS: Social media-disseminated public health messages reached more than 23% of the Northern Ireland population. A Web-based survey suggested that the campaign might have contributed to improved knowledge and attitudes toward skin cancer among the target population. Findings suggested that shocking and humorous messages generated greatest impressions and engagement, but information-based messages were likely to be shared most. The extent of behavioral change as a result of the campaign remains to be explored, however, the change of attitudes and knowledge is promising. Social media is an inexpensive, effective method for delivering public health messages. However, existing and traditional process evaluation methods may not be suitable for social media.

Investigating the role of the general practitioner in cancer prevention: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of the effectiveness of cancer preventive services and the increasing development of guidelines, actual rates of delivery of cancer prevention activities remain low. Due to their frequent front-line contact with the public, family physicians (GPs) have the potential to play an important role in the primary prevention of cancer. However, there is a lack of information about their actual role in cancer prevention. The aim of this study was to investigate the actual and potential roles of general practitioners (GP) in the prevention of cancer. METHODS: A sequential exploratory mixed methods approach was used. The sample included all the General Practice (GP) practices in a region in the UK (n=345). Postal questionnaires were administered to GPs (n=1249); following 290 returns (response rate 23%), semi-structured interviews were undertaken with GPs (n=14). RESULTS: The majority of the GP respondents (66.4%, n=184) considered that they routinely provided cancer prevention information. This was specifically focusing on smoking cessation as almost all GPs (96.8%, n=270) enquired about a patient's smoking status. Overall, 47.2% (n=128) of GP respondents indicated that they felt they did not have time to perform a cancer prevention role; however, 88.3% (n=242) still felt that they had the 'opportunity' to do so. Over half the sample (61.3%, n=168) indicated that imposed health priorities and targets militated against providing cancer prevention activities. Almost all the GP respondents (98.9%, n=273) agreed with empowering individuals to take responsibility for their health issues. The GPs identified the need for alternative models for cancer prevention beyond current face to face patient care, including other health and non-health professionals. Whilst lack of time was identified as a critical factor, the GPs indicated that significant efforts were made to encourage patients to take personal responsibility for lifestyle choices. CONCLUSIONS: The GPs indicated a need for training around behavioural change and theories of motivation and action. This has implications for primary care and family physicians worldwide. While doctor-patient consultations and the physicians' credibility offer great potential for cancer prevention, time pressures and imposed government targets often mean that their actual cancer prevention role is reduced.

Trends in skin cancer knowledge, sun protection practices and behaviours in the Northern Ireland population.

BACKGROUND: Sun exposure increases risk of skin cancer, especially melanoma, incidence of which continues to rise. Reported skin cancer knowledge and trends in sun care behaviours are documented in a UK region where there has been 20 years of sun-related health promotion campaigns. METHODS: In 2000, 2004 and 2008, a 'care in the sun' module was included in the Northern Ireland (NI) Omnibus survey. Randomly selected subjects were asked to complete a sun-related questionnaire and proportions of respondents analysed by demographic and socio-economic factors, with differences tested using z-tests and the chi-squared test. RESULTS: Around 3623 persons responded. Skin cancer knowledge was high (97%). Sun avoidance decreased with time and was lowest among younger age groups and males. Sunscreen use was high (70%), unchanged over 8 years, and more likely among younger age groups, females, those in paid employment, and those with tertiary level education. Use of sunscreen with minimum Sun Protection Factor (SPF) 15 (a campaign message) increased from 45% to 70% (P < 0.01). Skin self-examination was infrequent (8%), less common among those aged ≥65 years, males and those with only primary or secondary level education. CONCLUSIONS: Messages on sunscreen use have penetrated the population well, but lower use among the unemployed suggests cost as an issue. Lack of sun avoidance in young people, especially men, poses a risk for further skin cancer increases. Low levels of reported skin self-examination in older people, men and those with lower educational attainment identify areas for further action.

Greater gains from smoke-free legislation for non-smoking bar staff in Belfast.

BACKGROUND: In April 2007, smoke-free legislation was enacted in workplaces throughout N. Ireland. The effects of this legislation on bar workers' health and their exposure to second-hand smoke at home, work and social environment, and their attitudes to the legislation before and after its implementation remain to be documented. METHODS: A self-completed questionnaire of bar staff in 35 Belfast bars, before (March 2007, n = 110) and after the legislation (July 2007, n = 110). RESULTS: Smokers (excluding 'social smokers') made up 41.6% of respondents. After the introduction of the smoke-free legislation, the reductions in the proportion of bar workers reporting various respiratory symptoms ranged from 1.3% to 18.6% for smokers and from 21.9% to 33.2% for non-smokers. Likewise, the reductions for various sensory symptoms ranged from 7.3% to 17.7% for smokers and from 29.6% to 46.8% for non-smokers. Reduction in wheeze, cough and throat symptoms after the legislation were much greater for non-smokers than smokers. The proportion of bar staff who reported satisfaction with the legislation remained unchanged across the surveys. Decreases in perceived exposure to second-hand smoke occurred at work, home and in social settings. After the legislation's enactment, a majority of bar workers felt the workplace was healthier (98%). CONCLUSION: These first findings show reduced reported symptoms among bar workers, both smokers and non-smokers, after the introduction of smoke-free legislation in N. Ireland, though greater among non-smokers. There was also a reported fall in the hours of second-hand smoke exposure in the home for this group of workers which has a high prevalence of smokers.

The role of stress, peer influence and education levels on the smoking behaviour of nurses.

Smoking kills yet a substantial number of qualified nurses continue to smoke. Stress, peer influence and education levels have been cited as influencing prevalence levels among nurses. A self-completed questionnaire was used to survey qualified nurses' perceptions of smoking prevalence, attitudes, and reasons for smoking. The respondents were composed of a random sample (n=1074) of qualified nurses employed in Northern Ireland. Results show that 25.8% of the sample smoked. Factors influencing smoking behaviour and reasons for continuing smoking are explored. This paper discusses the implications of these findings for nursing and nurses' health promotion activities.