| Summary: | BackgroundCommunicating strategically is a key issue for health organizations. Over the past decade, health care communication via social media and websites has generated a great deal of studies examining different realities of communication strategies. However, when it comes to systematic reviews, there is fragmentary evidence on this type of communication.
ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on web institutional health communication for public health authorities to evaluate possible aim-specific key points based on these existing studies.
MethodsGuided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, we conducted a comprehensive review across 2 electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) from January 1, 2011, to October 7, 2021, searching for studies investigating institutional health communication. In total, 2 independent researchers (AN and SS) reviewed the articles for inclusion, and the assessment of methodological quality was based on the Kmet appraisal checklist.
ResultsA total of 78 articles were selected. Most studies (35/78, 45%) targeted health promotion and disease prevention, followed by crisis communication (24/78, 31%), general health (13/78, 17%), and misinformation correction and health promotion (6/78, 8%). Engagement and message framing were the most analyzed aspects. Few studies (14/78, 18%) focused on campaign effectiveness. Only 23% (18/78) of the studies had an experimental design. The Kmet evaluation was used to distinguish studies presenting a solid structure from lacking studies. In particular, considering the 0.75-point threshold, 36% (28/78) of the studies were excluded. Studies above this threshold were used to identify a series of aim-specific and medium-specific suggestions as the communication strategies used differed greatly.
ConclusionsOverall, the findings suggest that no single strategy works best in the case of web-based health care communication. The extreme variability of outcomes and the lack of a unitary measure for assessing the end points of a specific campaign or study lead us to reconsider the tools we use to evaluate the efficacy of web-based health communication.
|
|---|