IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i4p591-d206949.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health Information Engagement Factors in Malaysia: A Content Analysis of Facebook Use by the Ministry of Health in 2016 and 2017

Author

Listed:
  • Afiq Izzudin A. Rahim

    (Department of Community Medicine, School of Medical Science, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kota Bharu 16150, Kelantan, Malaysia)

  • Mohd Ismail Ibrahim

    (Department of Community Medicine, School of Medical Science, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kota Bharu 16150, Kelantan, Malaysia)

  • Faizul Nizam A. Salim

    (Director General’s Office, Ministry of Health, Putrajaya 62590, Malaysia)

  • Mohd Ariff Ikram Ariffin

    (Director General’s Office, Ministry of Health, Putrajaya 62590, Malaysia
    Corporate Communication Unit, Ministry of Health, Putrajaya 62590, Malaysia)

Abstract

Health organizations have widely adopted social media for health promotion, public health communication conveyance, and organizational promotion activities. However, little published data exists on the factors that facilitate health information diffusion in South East Asia, especially Malaysia compared with Western countries. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with good engagement rates among internet users on the Facebook (FB) page of Ministry of Health Malaysia. In this observational study, 2123 FB posts were randomly selected. Data dated from 1 November 2016 to 31 October 2017 was gathered from the Facebook Insight. The logistic regression model was applied to identify factors associated with good engagement rates. This study found that a FB post with a good engagement rate was significantly associated with a health education post (Adjusted Odd Ratio (AOR): 3.80, 95% Confidence Interval CI: 3.02–4.78, p < 0.001), a risk communication post (AOR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.39–2.26, p < 0.001), a post in the afternoon (AOR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.34–2.31, p < 0.001) or in the evening (AOR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.20–1.82, p < 0.001), and a video format (AOR: 3.74, 95% CI: 1.44–9.71, p = 0.007). Therefore, we present the first comprehensive analysis of health information engagement among internet users in Malaysia. The growing trends of online health information-seeking behaviors and demand for the availability of validated health information require effective strategies by public health organizations to disseminate health information and achieve better audience engagement on social media.

Suggested Citation

  • Afiq Izzudin A. Rahim & Mohd Ismail Ibrahim & Faizul Nizam A. Salim & Mohd Ariff Ikram Ariffin, 2019. "Health Information Engagement Factors in Malaysia: A Content Analysis of Facebook Use by the Ministry of Health in 2016 and 2017," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:4:p:591-:d:206949
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/4/591/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/4/591/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    2. May O. Lwin & Jiahui Lu & Anita Sheldenkar & Peter J. Schulz, 2018. "Strategic Uses of Facebook in Zika Outbreak Communication: Implications for the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, September.
    3. John W. Fritch & Robert L. Cromwell, 2001. "Evaluating Internet resources: Identity, affiliation, and cognitive authority in a networked world," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(6), pages 499-507.
    4. Ellen Ter Huurne & Jan Gutteling, 2008. "Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 847-862, October.
    5. Lister, C. & Royne, M. & Payne, H.E. & Cannon, B. & Hanson, C. & Barnes, M., 2015. "The laugh model: Reframing and rebranding public health through social media," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(11), pages 2245-2251.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    2. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    3. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    4. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    5. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    7. Femke Hilverda & Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2018. "Online Information Sharing About Risks: The Case of Organic Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1904-1920, September.
    8. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    9. Hang Lu & APPC 2018–2019 ASK Group & Kenneth Winneg & Kathleen Hall Jamieson & Dolores Albarracín, 2020. "Intentions to Seek Information About the Influenza Vaccine: The Role of Informational Subjective Norms, Anticipated and Experienced Affect, and Information Insufficiency Among Vaccinated and Unvaccina," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2040-2056, October.
    10. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    11. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    13. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    14. Michelle Symons & Carmem Meira Cunha & Karolien Poels & Heidi Vandebosch & Nathalie Dens & Clara Alida Cutello, 2021. "Physical Activity during the First Lockdown of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Investigating the Reliance on Digital Technologies, Perceived Benefits, Barriers and the Impact of Affect," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-23, May.
    15. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    16. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    17. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    18. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    19. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    20. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:4:p:591-:d:206949. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.