Using a Private Facebook Group to Engage Low-Income Families With Young Children With Evidence-Based Nutrition and Dental Health Information
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Low-income children in the United States have high rates of obesity and dental caries. Social media may be an efficient and accessible tool to engage individuals in relevant evidence-based nutrition and dental information and motivate healthier behaviors. Previous research on social media–delivered behavioral interventions suggests that engagement may vary by post type. Objective The aim of this study is to assess (1) engagement with moderator posts in a private Facebook group for caregivers of children aged 1-6 years from low-income communities by type of post, and (2) the proportion of caregivers who engaged with moderator posts within a sample 2-week period. Methods We enrolled 67 low-income caregivers of children aged 1-6 years from Connecticut in a private Facebook group. A moderator posted 5 posts per week that included evidence-based information to promote healthy diet and dental health in young children. Posts were polls, informational posts, healthy recipes, and open-ended questions. Informational posts focused on responsive feeding, healthier snacks, sugar-sweetened beverages, teeth brushing, and flossing. Polls solicited caregivers’ interest in particular topics, which was used to guide future posts, and were intended to engage caregivers. Information provided was consistent with the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and post format was informed by the Information Motivation Behavior model. Facebook analytics provided interactions (replies, reactions, poll votes) and impressions on moderator posts from September 2021 to February 2022. We calculated the proportion of caregivers who engaged with moderator posts over a sample 2-week period (February 21 to March 4, 2022). Results Over 5 months, the moderator posted 110 posts. Polls (n=27) attracted the most engagement, with a median of 5 interactions (IQR 3-7, range 0-13) and a median of 24 impressions (IQR 22-27, range 20-41) per post. Informational posts (n=38) received a median of 1.5 interactions (IQR 1-3, range 0-5) and a median of 22 impressions (IQR 20-25, range 10-42) per post. Posts sharing recipes (n=28) had similar engagement with a median of 1 interaction (IQR 1-2, range 0-6) and a median of 21 impressions (IQR 18-24, range 11-32) per post. Posts with open-ended questions (n=17) had the lowest level of engagement with a median of 0.5 interactions (IQR 0-0.5, range 0-6) and a median of 19 impressions (IQR 17.5-24, range 16-27) per post. During the 2-week sampling period (n=10 posts), 58% of caregivers interacted with at least one moderator post. Conclusions Nearly 6 in 10 caregivers engaged in the group, and nonengaging caregivers may have benefited from involvement despite lack of visible engagement. Polls may be a more effective strategy to engage caregivers around child nutrition and dental health than informational posts or posts that ask caregivers open-ended questions about their experiences. Future research should use feedback from caregivers on posts with low engagement to revise posts to better engage caregivers. Conflicts of Interest None declared.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».