Investigating the feasibility and acceptability of using Instagram to engage post-graduate students in a mass communication social media-based health intervention, #WeeStepsToHealth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instagram's popularity among young adults continues to rise, and previous work has identified diffusion of unhealthy messages and misinformation throughout the platform. However, we know little about how to use Instagram to promote health messages. This study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of using Instagram to engage post-graduate students in a mass communication social media (SM)-based health intervention. METHODS: A 4-week intervention targeting post-graduate students with physical activity (PA), nutrition, and general wellbeing messages was conducted via Instagram. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed using SM metrics (likes, comments, and shares), pre- and post-intervention online surveys (knowledge, attitude, and behavioural outcomes), and a focus group conducted with a sample of individuals in the target population (to assess intervention recall, feedback on message framing, and acceptability of Instagram). RESULTS: The two independent samples captured by online surveys (pre-intervention, n = 43, post-intervention, n = 41, representing 12.3% and 11.7% of Instagram followers, respectively) were predominantly female (88.4%, 80.5%) aged 18-34 (95.4%, 95.1%). Respondents in the second survey reported higher weekly PA levels (+ 13.7%) and more frequent nutritional behaviours including consumption of five or more fruits and vegetables (+ 23.3%) and looking at nutritional labels (+ 10.3%). However, respondents in the second survey also reported less frequent meal preparation (- 18.0%) and a small increase in fast food consumption (+ 2.8% consuming fast food 3-4 days a week). A total of 247 'likes' were collected from 28 Instagram posts (mean 8.8 likes per post). Humorous posts achieved a moderately higher level of engagement than non-humorous posts (median 10 and 8 likes, respectively). Focus group participants liked the campaign content and trusted the information source. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that Instagram could be a feasible and acceptable platform for engaging post-graduate students in a SM-based mass communication health intervention, and that humour may have the potential to encourage further engagement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".