IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-04871-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual protective actions with social support seeking in an online health community: two observational cross-sectional studies during public health emergencies

Author

Listed:
  • Shanshan Guo

    (Shanghai International Studies University
    Shanghai International Studies University)

  • Yun Chen

    (Shanghai International Studies University)

  • Yuanyuan Dang

    (South China University of Technology)

  • Xiao Li

    (Shanghai International Studies University)

Abstract

In public health emergencies, there is a critical need for accurate informational and emotional support to counteract misinformation and trauma. Online Health Communities (OHCs) serve as essential resources for real-time health counseling and support. This study investigates how OHCs facilitate the acquisition of informational and emotional support, crucial for guiding informed protective decisions. By integrating the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM) with social support theory, the research examines the impact of disaster-related information on patients’ decision-making within OHCs, aiming to optimize these platforms for public health response and preparedness. The study utilizes a dataset comprising 602 doctor-patient consultation dialogues from a Chinese OHC. Through text and sentiment analysis, the study quantifies the volume of information and sentiment, which serve as indicators of the level of informational and emotional support sought by patients. Environmental and social cues related to emergency situations are measured using disaster early forecast information and the volume of social media discussions on the emergency. Multiple linear regression models are employed to analyze the impact of these cues on patients’ behaviors, specifically their informational-seeking and emotional-seeking actions. It indicates that social cues have an impact on patients’ seeking informational support, while only in the high-uncertainty public health emergency, environmental cues are positively correlated with patients’ seeking both emotional and informational support. Additionally, stakeholder actions in the context of OHCs positively moderate the influence of environmental and social cues on individual protective actions to some extent. This study advances the understanding of OHCs by applying and empirically testing the PADM in a digital health context. It also explores the varying impacts of different types of public health emergencies on patient behavior within OHCs. The findings can guide healthcare providers and OHC administrators in enhancing support mechanisms, particularly during public health emergencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Shanshan Guo & Yun Chen & Yuanyuan Dang & Xiao Li, 2025. "Individual protective actions with social support seeking in an online health community: two observational cross-sectional studies during public health emergencies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04871-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-04871-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-04871-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-04871-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karynne L. Turner & Mona V. Makhija, 2012. "The role of individuals in the information processing perspective," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 661-680, June.
    2. Nic Fleming, 2020. "Coronavirus misinformation, and how scientists can help to fight it," Nature, Nature, vol. 583(7814), pages 155-156, July.
    3. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2012. "On “Black Swans” and “Perfect Storms”: Risk Analysis and Management When Statistics Are Not Enough," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1823-1833, November.
    4. Wendy Phillips & Jens K. Roehrich & Dharm Kapletia, 2023. "Responding to information asymmetry in crisis situations: innovation in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 175-198, January.
    5. Jing Zeng & Jiuchang Wei & Weiwei Zhu & Dingtao Zhao & Xunguo Lin, 2019. "Residents’ behavioural intentions to resist the nuclear power plants in the vicinity: an application of the protective action decision model," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 382-400, March.
    6. Zhijun Yan & Lini Kuang & Liangfei Qiu, 2022. "Prosocial behaviors and economic performance: Evidence from an online mental healthcare platform," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(10), pages 3859-3876, October.
    7. André Palma & Mohammed Abdellaoui & Giuseppe Attanasi & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Ido Erev & Helga Fehr-Duda & Dennis Fok & Craig Fox & Ralph Hertwig & Nathalie Picard & Peter Wakker & Joan Walker & Martin We, 2014. "Beware of black swans: Taking stock of the description–experience gap in decision under uncertainty," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 269-280, September.
    8. Frederik Dahlmann & Jens K. Roehrich, 2019. "Sustainable supply chain management and partner engagement to manage climate change information," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(8), pages 1632-1647, December.
    9. repec:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2017.303947_9 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Joel Rasmussen & Petter B. Wikström, 2022. "Returning Home after Decontamination? Applying the Protective Action Decision Model to a Nuclear Accident Scenario," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Ken Strahan & Stuart J. Watson, 2019. "The protective action decision model: when householders choose their protective response to wildfire," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(12), pages 1602-1623, December.
    12. Rose, D.A. & Murthy, S. & Brooks, J. & Bryant, J., 2017. "The Evolution of Public Health Emergency Management as a Field of Practice," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 107(S2), pages 126-133.
    13. Jay R. Galbraith, 1974. "Organization Design: An Information Processing View," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 28-36, May.
    14. John Mueller & Mark G. Stewart, 2016. "The curse of the Black Swan," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(10), pages 1319-1330, November.
    15. Qili Wang & Liangfei Qiu & Wei Xu, 2024. "Informal Payments and Doctor Engagement in an Online Health Community: An Empirical Investigation Using Generalized Synthetic Control," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 706-726, June.
    16. Michael K. Lindell & David J. Whitney, 2000. "Correlates of Household Seismic Hazard Adjustment Adoption," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 13-26, February.
    17. Robert L. Heath & Jaesub Lee & Michael J. Palenchar & Laura L. Lemon, 2018. "Risk Communication Emergency Response Preparedness: Contextual Assessment of the Protective Action Decision Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 333-344, February.
    18. Rui Yang & Guoming Du & Ziwei Duan & Mengjin Du & Xin Miao & Yanhong Tang, 2020. "Knowledge System Analysis on Emergency Management of Public Health Emergencies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, May.
    19. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    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. Joel Rasmussen & Petter B. Wikström, 2022. "Returning Home after Decontamination? Applying the Protective Action Decision Model to a Nuclear Accident Scenario," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Branden B. Johnson, 2019. "Americans’ Views of Voluntary Protective Actions Against Zika Infection: Conceptual and Measurement Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2694-2717, December.
    3. Manqing Wu & Guochun Wu, 2020. "An Analysis of Rural Households’ Earthquake-Resistant Construction Behavior: Evidence from Pingliang and Yuxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-14, December.
    4. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," 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. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    5. Yongxin Chen & Min Zhang & Lane Matthews & Hangfei Guo, 2024. "Digital transformation and environmental information disclosure in China: The moderating role of top management team's ability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(8), pages 8456-8470, December.
    6. Junlei Yu & Timothy Sim & Wenhua Qi & Zhe Zhu, 2020. "Communication with Local Officials, Self-Efficacy, and Individual Disaster Preparedness: A Case Study of Rural Northwestern China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Hao-Teng Cheng & Ko-Wan Tsou, 2018. "Mitigation Policy Acceptance Model: An Analysis of Individual Decision Making Process toward Residential Seismic Strengthening," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-12, August.
    8. Barbara Ryan & Rachel King & Weena Lokuge & Warna Karunasena & Esther Anderson, 2023. "Using an inventory cluster approach for assessing bushfire preparedness and information needs in vulnerable communities," 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. 115(2), pages 1697-1714, January.
    9. Yibin Ao & Hongying Zhang & Linchuan Yang & Yan Wang & Igor Martek & Gang Wang, 2021. "Impacts of earthquake knowledge and risk perception on earthquake preparedness of rural residents," 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. 107(2), pages 1287-1310, June.
    10. Nicolás C Bronfman & Pamela C Cisternas & Paula B Repetto & Javiera V Castañeda, 2019. "Natural disaster preparedness in a multi-hazard environment: Characterizing the sociodemographic profile of those better (worse) prepared," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Yutong Liu & Jian Du & Taewon Kang & Mingu Kang, 2024. "Establishing supply chain transparency and its impact on supply chain risk management and resilience," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1157-1171, September.
    12. Laura N. Rickard & Z. Janet Yang & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Gina M. Eosco & Clifford W. Scherer & Ricardo A. Daziano, 2017. "Sizing Up a Superstorm: Exploring the Role of Recalled Experience and Attribution of Responsibility in Judgments of Future Hurricane Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2334-2349, December.
    13. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Rengarajan, Srinath & Moser, Roger & Narayanamurthy, Gopalakrishnan, 2021. "Strategy tools in dynamic environments – An expert-panel study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    15. Joel Rasmussen & Mats Eriksson & Johan Martinsson, 2022. "Citizens’ Communication Needs and Attitudes to Risk in a Nuclear Accident Scenario: A Mixed Methods Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-17, June.
    16. Abdul‐Akeem Sadiq & John D. Graham, 2016. "Exploring the Predictors of Organizational Preparedness for Natural Disasters," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(5), pages 1040-1053, May.
    17. Zeng, Jing & Duan, Hongyu & Zhu, Weiwei & Song, Jingyan, 2024. "Understanding residents’ risk information seeking, processing and sharing regarding waste incineration power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 304(C).
    18. Xiongwei Quan & Gaoshan Zuo & Helin Sun, 2022. "Risk Perception Thresholds and Their Impact on the Behavior of Nearby Residents in Waste to Energy Project Conflict: An Evolutionary Game Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, May.
    19. Jeremy Galbreath & Chia‐Yang Chang & Daniel Tisch, 2023. "The impact of a proactive environmental strategy on environmentally sustainable practices in service firms: The moderating effect of information use value," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(8), pages 5420-5434, December.
    20. Zahra Asgarizadeh & Robert Gifford, 2022. "Community and psychological barriers to tsunami preparation," 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. 112(2), pages 1321-1336, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-04871-3. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.