Affiliations
AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
Implementation of Digital Awareness Strategies to Engage Patients and Providers in a Lung Cancer Screening Program: Retrospective StudyDana L Jessup et al. J Med Internet Res. 2018.
AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
AbstractBackground: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Despite mandated insurance coverage for eligible patients, lung cancer screening rates remain low. Digital platforms, including social media, provide a potentially valuable tool to enhance health promotion and patient engagement related to lung cancer screening (LCS).
Objective: The aim was to assess the effectiveness of LCS digital awareness campaigns on utilization of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and visits to institutional online educational content.
Methods: A pay-per-click campaign utilizing Google and Facebook targeted adults aged 55 years and older and caregivers aged 18 years and older (eg, spouses, adult children) with LCS content during a 20-week intervention period from May to September 2016. A concurrent pay-per-click campaign using LinkedIn and Twitter targeted health care providers with LCS content. Geographic target radius was within 60 miles of an academic medical center. Social media data included aggregate demographics and click-through rates (CTRs). Primary outcome measures were visits to institutional Web pages and scheduled LDCT exams. Study period was 20 weeks before, during, and after the digital awareness campaigns.
Results: Weekly visits to the institutional LCS Web pages were significantly higher during the digital awareness campaigns compared to the 20-week period prior to implementation (mean 823.9, SD 905.8 vs mean 51, SD 22.3, P=.001). The patient digital awareness campaign surpassed industry standard CTRs on Google (5.85%, 1108/18,955 vs 1.8%) and Facebook (2.59%, 47,750/1,846,070 vs 0.8%). The provider digital awareness campaign surpassed industry standard CTR on LinkedIn (1.1%, 630/57,079 vs 0.3%) but not Twitter (0.19%, 1139/587,133 vs 0.25%). Mean scheduled LDCT exam volumes per week before, during, and after the digital awareness campaigns were 17.4 (SD 7.5), 20.4 (SD 5.4), and 26.2 (SD 6.4), respectively, with the difference between the mean number of scheduled exams after the digital awareness campaigns and the number of exams scheduled before and after the digital awareness campaigns being statistically significant (P<.001).
Conclusions: Implementation of the LCS digital awareness campaigns was associated with increased visits to institutional educational Web pages and scheduled LDCT exams. Digital platforms are an important tool to enhance health promotion activities and engagement with patients and providers.
Keywords: diagnostic imaging; lung neoplasms; patient participation; search engine; social media.
©Dana L Jessup, McKinley Glover IV, Dania Daye, Lynda Banzi, Philip Jones, Garry Choy, Jo-Anne O Shepard, Efrén J Flores. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 15.02.2018.
Conflict of interest statementConflicts of Interest: None declared.
FiguresFigure 1
Patient-focused lung cancer screening content…
Figure 1
Patient-focused lung cancer screening content on Facebook included carousels, videos, graphics interchange formats,…
Figure 1Patient-focused lung cancer screening content on Facebook included carousels, videos, graphics interchange formats, and static images.
Figure 2
Provider-focused lung cancer screening content…
Figure 2
Provider-focused lung cancer screening content on LinkedIn focused on eligibility and mortality benefit.
Figure 2Provider-focused lung cancer screening content on LinkedIn focused on eligibility and mortality benefit.
Figure 3
Provider-focused lung cancer screening content…
Figure 3
Provider-focused lung cancer screening content on Twitter focused on eligibility and mortality benefit.
Figure 3Provider-focused lung cancer screening content on Twitter focused on eligibility and mortality benefit.
Figure 4
The differences between the mean…
Figure 4
The differences between the mean number of weekly scheduled exams before, during, and…
Figure 4The differences between the mean number of weekly scheduled exams before, during, and after the campaigns. The boxes represent the upper and lower quartiles of the dataset, the whiskers extend to the highest and lowest observations in the dataset that are one and a half times the interquartile range, and the dots represent the outliers observed in the dataset.
Similar articlesLi J, Chung S, Wei EK, Luft HS. Li J, et al. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jul 5;18(1):525. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3338-9. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018. PMID: 29976189 Free PMC article.
Dodd RH, Sharman AR, McGregor D, Stone E, Donnelly C, Lourenco RA, Marshall H, Rankin NM. Dodd RH, et al. Prev Med. 2023 Apr;169:107459. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107459. Epub 2023 Feb 26. Prev Med. 2023. PMID: 36854365 Review.
Kim A, Hansen H, Duke J, Davis K, Alexander R, Rowland A, Mitchko J. Kim A, et al. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Mar 16;18(3):e64. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4299. J Med Internet Res. 2016. PMID: 26983849 Free PMC article.
Davis KC, Shafer PR, Rodes R, Kim A, Hansen H, Patel D, Coln C, Beistle D. Davis KC, et al. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Sep 14;18(9):e235. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5683. J Med Internet Res. 2016. PMID: 27627853 Free PMC article.
Chan L, O'Hara B, Phongsavan P, Bauman A, Freeman B. Chan L, et al. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 11;22(8):e17432. doi: 10.2196/17432. J Med Internet Res. 2020. PMID: 32348272 Free PMC article. Review.
Griffin AC, Topaloglu U, Davis S, Chung AE. Griffin AC, et al. Yearb Med Inform. 2020 Aug;29(1):235-242. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1701983. Epub 2020 Aug 21. Yearb Med Inform. 2020. PMID: 32823322 Free PMC article. Review.
Dlamini SB, Sartorius B, Ginindza TG. Dlamini SB, et al. J Public Health Afr. 2023 Feb 1;14(1):2131. doi: 10.4081/jphia.2023.2131. eCollection 2023 Jan 27. J Public Health Afr. 2023. PMID: 36798842 Free PMC article.
D'Anna G, Pyatigorskaya N, Appelman A, Van Goethem J, Smits M. D'Anna G, et al. Neuroradiology. 2019 May;61(5):621-626. doi: 10.1007/s00234-019-02193-1. Epub 2019 Mar 29. Neuroradiology. 2019. PMID: 30927023
Gagne SM, Fintelmann FJ, Flores EJ, McDermott S, Mendoza DP, Petranovic M, Price MC, Stowell JT, Little BP. Gagne SM, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Jan 3;3(1):e1920431. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20431. JAMA Netw Open. 2020. PMID: 32003825 Free PMC article.
Odole IP, Andersen M, Richman IB. Odole IP, et al. Am J Prev Med. 2024 May;66(5):899-908. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2024.01.007. Epub 2024 Jan 20. Am J Prev Med. 2024. PMID: 38246408 Free PMC article. Review.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3