Assessing the state of Web-based communication for public health: a systematic review

Background

Communicating strategically is a key issue for health organisations and, over the past decade, healthcare communication via social media and websites has generated a great deal of studies. As for systematic reviews, there is, however, fragmentary evidence on this type of communication. The aim of this research was to summarise the evidence on Web institutional health communication for public health authorities to evaluate aim-specific key points based on existing studies.

Methods

Guided by the PRISMA statement, we conducted a comprehensive review across two electronic databases (PubMed and Web of Science) from 2011 until 7 October 2021, searching for studies investigating institutional health communication. Two independent researchers reviewed the articles for inclusion, and assessment of methodological quality was based on the Kmet appraisal checklist.

Results

78 articles were selected. Most of the studies targeted health promotion/disease prevention (n = 35), followed by crisis communication (n = 24), general health (n = 13), and misinformation correction/health promotion (n = 6). Engagement and message framing were the most analysed aspects. Few studies focused on campaign effectiveness. Only 18 studies had an experimental design. Kmet evaluation was used to distinguish studies presenting a solid structure from lacking studies. In particular, considering the 0·75-point threshold, out of 74 studies, 28 were excluded (37·8% of the total). Studies above this threshold were used to identify a series of aim-specific and medium-specific suggestions, as communication strategies employed differ quite greatly.

Conclusions

Overall, findings suggest that no single strategy works best in the case of Web-based healthcare communication. The extreme variability of outcomes and the lack of a unitary measure for assessing the end-points of a specific campaign or study leads us to reconsider the tools we use to evaluate the efficacy of Web-based health communication.

Key messages

Sex differences in food choices, adherence to dietary recommendations and plasma lipid profile in type 2 diabetes - The TOSCA.IT study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Diabetic women have a more adverse plasma lipid profile than men. Sex differences in dietary habits may play a role, but are little investigated. The study evaluates the quality of diet, adherence to the nutritional recommendations of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group and their relation with plasma lipid in men and women with diabetes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We studied 2573 people, aged 50-75, enrolled in the TOSCA.IT study (clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00700856). Plasma lipids were measured centrally. Diet was assessed with a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Women had a more adverse plasma lipid profile than men. Women consumed significantly more legumes, vegetables, fruits, eggs, milk, vegetable oils, and added sugar, whereas men consumed more starchy foods, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages. This stands for a higher proportion (%) of energy intake from saturated fat and added sugar (12.0 ± 2.4 vs 11.5 ± 2.5 and 3.4 ± 3.2 vs 2.3 ± 3.2, P < 0.04), and a higher intake of fiber (11.2 ± 2.8 vs 10.4 ± 2.6 g/1000 Kcal/day) in women. Adherence to the recommendations for saturated fat and fiber consumption was associated with significantly lower LDL-cholesterol regardless of sex. Adherence to the recommendations for added sugars was associated with significantly lower triglycerides and higher HDL-cholesterol in men and women.

CONCLUSIONS

Men and women with diabetes show significant differences in adherence to nutritional recommendations, but sex differences in plasma lipid profile are unlikely to be explained by nutritional factors. Adherence to the nutritional recommendations is associated with a better plasma lipid profile regardless of sex, thus reinforcing the importance of substituting saturated for unsaturated fat sources, increasing fiber and reducing added sugar intake.

Improvement in the detection of enteric protozoa from clinical stool samples using the automated urine sediment analyzer sediMAX® 2 compared to sediMAX® 1

Detection of intestinal parasites from fecal samples is routinely performed by direct wet mount examination. This method requires skilled personnel, and it is time consuming. The aim of this work is to demonstrate the usefulness of the newer automated urinary sediment analyser sediMAX 2 for a fast detection of intestinal protozoa in stool samples. A total of 700 consecutively preserved samples consisting of 70 positives and 630 negatives were analyzed. SediMAX 2 takes digital images of each sediment sample, and analysis was conducted using a dilution of stool specimens, allowing determination of typical morphology. Compared to manual microscopy, sediMAX 2 showed sensitivity and specificity of 100 % in the detection of intestinal parasites, as also recently demonstrated for sediMAX 1. However, all clinically important human protozoa were detected using only 15 images for each specimen, compared to 30 images required in sediMAX 1 analysis. Moreover, changing manually the focus, it is possible to carry out a discrimination between morphologically identical Entamoeba complex members, including the pathogenic E. histolytica and the non-pathogenic E. dispar, E. moshkovskii and E. Bangladeshi, from the non-pathogenic Entamoeba coli based on the number of nuclei present in the cells. This study presents sediMAX 2 as an automatic aid to traditional microscopy.

Detection of intestinal parasites by use of the cuvette-based automated microscopy analyser sediMAX(®)

Microscopy is the reference method for intestinal parasite identification. The cuvette-based automated microscopy analyser, sediMAX 1, provides 15 digital images of each sediment sample. In this study, we have evaluated this fully automated instrument for detection of enteric parasites, helminths and protozoa. A total of 700 consecutively preserved samples consisting of 60 positive samples (50 protozoa, ten helminths) and 640 negative samples were analysed. Operators were blinded to each others' results. Samples were randomized and were tested both by manual microscopy and sediMAX 1 for parasite recognition. The sediMAX 1 analysis was conducted using a dilution of faecal samples, allowing determination of morphology. The data obtained using sediMAX 1 showed a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 100%. Some species of helminths, such as Enterobius vermicularis, Strongyloides stercolaris, the Ancylostoma duodenale/Necator americanus complex, and schistosomes were not considered in this work, because they are rare in stool specimens, are not easily detectable with microscopy analysis, and require specific recovery techniques. This study demonstrated for the first time that sediMAX 1 can be an aid in enteric parasite identification.