This document provides an overview of the Social Media for Public Health project. The project aims to educate public health professionals on using social media through online training modules. It describes a pilot test of the training with 49 participants from a local health department. The training was effective, increasing participants' comfort levels with various social media and perception of their usefulness for public health. The pilot demonstrated that social media can engage staff and help disseminate health information to the public when implemented strategically.
1. Social Media for Public Health
Lorelei Woody, MLIS
University of Michigan
Taubman Health Sciences Library
(loreleih@umich.edu)
http://smforph.ning.com
2. Profile
RSS
Tweeting
Live Feed Digg It!
Following Status Update
Mashable Slideshare
#hashtag Friending
Avatar Delicious
Feed Burner
Hootsuite
Linked In Newb
4. Take-Aways:
• Social Media for Public Health Project
– Content, uses, & potential for your organization
• Social Media
– Ways to use social media in a public health context
• Taking the next step
– Considerations for moving forward
http://smforph.ning.com
5.
6. If these are “social” tools, why try to
find a role here anyway?
A)Because it’s cool?
B)Because we’ve got administrative
pressure to get involved?
C)Because this is where our public is?
D)To fill a need in our population?
E)To help solve organizational issues?
7. Why do we care?
A)Because it’s cool?
B)Because we’ve got administrative
pressure to get involved?
C)Because this is where our public is?
D)To fill a need in our population?
E)To help solve organizational issues?
8. 47% of all online adults use social
networking sites
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx?r=1
9. 72% of online 18-29 year olds use
social networking sites
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx?r=1
10. 73% of online teens use social
networking sites
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx?r=1
11.
12. 11% of internet users ages thirty
and older maintain a personal
blog
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Social-Media-and-Young-Adults.aspx?r=1
14. 80% of internet users have looked
online for health information
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx
15. 41%
of e-patients have read
someone else's commentary
or experience about health or
medical issues on an online
news group, website, or blog
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx
16. 19% of e-patients have signed up
to receive updates about
health or medical issues
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/8-The-Social-Life-of-Health-Information.aspx
18. Social Media for Public
Health: Project background
• Based on “Learning 2.0” program developed
at the Public Library of Charlotte &
Mecklenburg County (23 Things)
• Hosted on a Ning social networking site –
users sign up, create a profile, and can
interact with each other
http://smforph.ning.com
19. Social Media for Public
Health: online training &
community
• Set of 10 modules:
– Videos, “plain language” descriptions, and step-
by-step activities to practice with different social
media technologies
• Self-directed; self-paced
• May be implemented within an organization
http://smforph.ning.com
25. Social Media for Public
Health: pilot test -- Saginaw
• 49 participants
– 11% between 18-29yrs
– 25% between 30-39yrs
– 23% between 40-49yrs
– 34% between 50-59yrs
– 7% = 60+yrs
• Of the 49 participants:
– 7 created a profile and had no further involvement (14%);
– 20 created a profile and posted at least one photo or
social comment (41%);
– 22 appeared to actively work through some or all of the
social media training modules (45%).
http://smforph.ning.com
26. Social Media for Public
Health: pilot test -- Saginaw
Pretest: Most Comfortable Posttest: Most Comfortable
1. Text Messaging [69%] 1. Text messaging [79%]
2. Facebook or social 2. Facebook or other social
networking site [48%] networking site [79%]
3. Google Docs [32%] 3. Blogs [71%]
4. Flickr or other photo 4. Twitter [67%]
sharing site [29%] 5. YouTube or other video
5. SlideShare or other sharing site [54%]
slide sharing site [27%]
http://smforph.ning.com
27. Social Media for Public
Health: pilot test -- Saginaw
Pretest: Least Comfortable Posttest: Least Comfortable
1. Twitter [87%] 1. Wikis [78%]
2. Wikis [86%] 2. SlideShare or other slide
3. Blogs [78%] sharing site (tie 2 & 3) [54%]
4. YouTube or other video 3. Flick or other photo sharing
sharing site [76%] site (tie 2 & 3) [54%]
5. Online data visualization 4. Online data visualization tools
tools [73%] [50%]
5. YouTube or other video
sharing site [46%]
http://smforph.ning.com
28. Social Media for Public
Health: pilot test -- Saginaw
Pretest: Most Useful Posttest: Most Useful
1. Online data visualization 1. Text messaging
tools 2. Google Docs (tie 2 & 3)
2. Facebook or other social
networking site 3. YouTube or other video
3. Google Docs sharing site (tie 2 & 3)
4. Text messaging (tie 4 & 5) 4. Facebook or other social
5. SlideShare or other slide networking site (tie 4 & 5)
sharing site (tie 4 & 5) 5. Online data visualization
tools (tie 4 & 5)
http://smforph.ning.com
29. Social Media for Public
Health: pilot test -- Saginaw
Pretest: Preferred Training Posttest: Preferred Training
1. Attend a class with 1. Complete an online
hands on learning tutorial
2. Attend a live 2. Attend a class with
demonstration hands on learning
3. Just try it and
3. Complete an online figure it out on your
tutorial own
http://smforph.ning.com
30. Social Media for Public
Health: pilot test -- Saginaw
• I found participating in this experience quite
beneficial and educational. I also believe that
the staff of SCDPH enjoyed the sense of
"community" found by sharing comments,
photos, etcetera.
• Used responsibly, I think social media can be a
useful tool to reach many people and share
important information.
http://smforph.ning.com
31. Social Media for Public
Health: pilot test -- Saginaw
• This pilot project has been extremely helpful to
SCDPH in getting our staff to think about how social
media technologies can be applied in our daily work.
It was also very helpful in identifying potential staff
that can be pulled in for use/development of such
technologies. […] Without this pilot project we
would continue to spin our wheels on how to get
started with some of these technologies, and frankly
just have people throw up road blocks for its use.
This has helped build organizational buy-in from all
levels of staff to the importance and usefulness of
social media.
http://smforph.ning.com
36. Levels of Engagement
• Listen to and monitor social chatter
• Brand your organization across social media
platforms
• Broadcast your message across social media
• Promote your social media profile and social
bookmarking
• Engage your audience through social media
http://smforph.ning.com
37. Planning for Social Media
• Success requires… • Training!
– Clear expectations – Time to “play”
– Shared goals – Break down barriers
– Administrative support – Enables more helpers
– Technical capacity – Generates new ideas
– Committed staff
– Time & support
– Intentional Planning!
http://smforph.ning.com
38. Planning for Social Media
• Be Strategic! (You probably can’t do it all)
• Brainstorm:
– Concentrate on challenges/issues (NOT technologies)
– Brainstorm possible applications or solutions
• Rank in order of priority
• Rank in order of ease/difficulty
– Low hanging fruit:
• high priority, easy to do – go for it!
http://smforph.ning.com
40. Mindset
“Engaging in social media requires a shift
in the way associations view themselves
and their relationships with members.
The shift is happening on a cultural,
organizational, and individual level”
- SocialFish white paper: Social Media, Risk, and
Policies for Associations (2010)
http://smforph.ning.com
43. Contact
• Lorelei Woody
loreleih@umich.edu
(734) 615-8923
• Program also developed by Whitney Townsend,
Gillian Mayman; supported by Abby Bedford,
Bethany Harris; with direction from Nancy Allee,
Jane Blumenthal.
• Supported by the National Network of Libraries of
Medicine Greater Midwest Region, subcontract.
http://smforph.ning.com
44. References
• Blowers, Helene. “Learning 2.0.” The Public Library of Charlotte &
Mecklenburg County. October 2006. http://plcmcl2-about.blogspot.com/
• Fox, Susannah. “Social Media’s Promise for Public Health.” E-Patients.net.
August 2009.
http://e-patients.net/archives/2009/08/social-medias-promise-for-public-hea
• Fox, Susannah. “The Social Life of Health Information.” Pew Internet &
American Life Project: California Healthcare Foundation. June 2009.
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Health_20
09.pdf
• InQbation. “Government/Nonprofit Policy: Use of Social Media.”
Washington, DC. February 2008. http://www.inqbation.com/government-
policy-on-the-use-of-social-media
http://smforph.ning.com
45. References
• Merrill, Molly. “Eight steps for creating your social media policy.”
Healthcare IT News: New Gloucester, ME. April 2010.
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/eight-steps-creating-your-social-
media-policy
• Northwest Center for Public Health Practice. “Use of Social Media Tools:
Public Health Examples” (recorded webinar + documents). Seattle, WA.
August 2010. http://www.nwcphp.org/training/hot-topics/2010-hot-
topics/social-media-examples
• Social Media for Public Health. http://smforph.ning.com
• Social Media Governance. “Policy Database.”
http://socialmediagovernance.com/policies.php
• White, Leslie. “Social Media, Risk, and Policies for Associations.” Social
Fish: Washington, DC. January 2010.
http://www.socialfish.org/whitepaper#policies
http://smforph.ning.com