Evaluation of Ministry of Health Instagram Use in the Context of Risk Communication during the Covid-19 Pandemic Process

Year 2021, Volume: 12 Issue: 31, 712 - 733, 20.08.2021

Esra Vona Kurt , Yasemin Duran

https://doi.org/10.21076/vizyoner.872303

Abstract

During high-risk infectious epidemics, it is necessary to reach and inform the public through effective communication strategies in order to identify the existing risk and control the epidemic. In such cases, it is important that the health institutions managing the risk process can convey the risk of epidemic disease to the public with all its dimensions and convey the hope that the epidemic can be controlled with the measures taken, with an interactive communication. The use of social media in the field of health offers opportunities for individuals and health institutions that shape public health within the framework of the opportunity to communicate interactively with large target audiences. For this reason, it becomes important to reveal the effect and function of social media environments in the risk communication process in cases of epidemic risk. The study focuses on the social media activities of the Ministry of Health, which is the only institution that manages and directs the pandemic process in Turkey during Covid-19 pandemic. In the research, the posts shared by the Ministry of Health on the Instagram account are analysed within the framework of risk communication models. The study tries to understand the communication styles, risk content and risk perception adopted by the Ministry on Instagram during the epidemic, and the content and context of the communication carried out by the Ministry of Health on Instagram is examined through shared posts. In the study, which aims to analyse the data collected by the content analysis technique, the findings obtained using descriptive statistical tests are evaluated within the framework of risk communication models.

Keywords

Risk Communication, Social Media, Instagram, Pandemic, Covid-19

Covid-19 Pandemi Sürecinde Sağlık Bakanlığı’nın Instagram Kullanımının Risk İletişimi Bağlamında Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Yüksek risk içeren bulaşıcı salgın hastalıklar sırasında, var olan riski tanımlamak ve salgını kontrol altına alabilmek için etkili iletişim stratejileri yoluyla halka ulaşmak ve bilgilendirmek gerekmektedir. Bu tür durumlarda risk sürecini yöneten sağlık kurumlarının salgın hastalık riskini tüm boyutlarıyla halka aktarması ve alınan önlemlerle salgının kontrol altına alınabileceği umudunu etkileşimli bir iletişimle kitlelere aktarabilmesi önemlidir. Sağlık alanında sosyal medya kullanımı, hem bireylere hem de halk sağlığını biçimlendiren sağlık kurumlarına geniş hedef kitlelerle etkileşimli iletişim kurma olanağı çerçevesinde fırsatlar sunmaktadır. Bu nedenle salgın hastalık riski durumlarında sosyal medya ortamlarının risk iletişim sürecindeki etkisini ve işlevini ortaya koymak önemli hale gelmektedir. Bu çalışma Covid-19 pandemisi sırasında ülkemizde pandemi sürecini yöneten ve yönlendiren tek kurum olan Sağlık Bakanlığı’nın sosyal medyadaki etkinliklerine odaklanmaktadır. Araştırmada, Sağlık Bakanlığı’nın Instagram hesabı üzerinden paylaştığı gönderiler, risk iletişimi modelleri çerçevesinde incelenmektedir. Çalışma, bakanlığın salgın sırasında Instagram’da benimsediği iletişim biçimlerini, risk içeriğini ve oluşturulmaya çalışılan risk algısını anlamaya çalışmakta ve Sağlık Bakanlığı’nın Instagram üzerinden gerçekleştirdiği iletişimin içeriği ve bağlamı, paylaşılan gönderiler üzerinden değerlendirilmektedir. İçerik analizi tekniğiyle bir inceleme gerçekleştirmeyi hedefleyen çalışmada, betimsel istatistik testleri kullanılarak elde edilen bulgular, risk iletişim modelleri çerçevesinde analiz edilmektedir.

Keywords

Risk İletişimi, Sosyal Medya, Instagram, Pandemi, Covid-19

References

• Alaszewski, A. (2005). Risk communication: Identifying the importance of social context. Health and Risk Society, 7(2), 101-105. doi: 10.1080/13698570500148905.
• Al-Eisa, E., Al-Rushud, A., Alghadir, A., Anwer, S., Al-Harbi, B., Al-Sughaier, N., ... ve Al-Muhaysin, H. A. (2016). Effect of motivation by “Instagram” on adherence to physical activity among female college students. BioMed Research International.
• Andrienko, N. ve Andrienko, G. (2007). Intelligent visualisation and information presentation for civil crisis management. Transactions in GIS, 11(6), 889-909.
• Arguin, P. M., Navin, A. W., Steele, S. F., Weld, L. H. ve Kozarsky, P. E. (2004). Health communication during SARS. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(2), 377.
• Baron, J., Hershey, J. C. ve Kunreuther, H. (2000). Determinants of priority for risk reduction: The role of worry, Risk Analysis. 20(4),413-427.
• Beck, U. (2014). Risk toplumu başka bir modernliğe doğru. K. Özdoğan ve B. Doğan (Çev.), İstanbul: İthaki Yayınevi.
• Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe: Free Press.
• Brug, J., Aro, A. R., Oenema, A., De Zwart, O., Richardus, J. H. ve Bishop, G. D. (2004). SARS risk perception, knowledge, precautions, and information sources, the Netherlands. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 10(8), 1486.
• Cairns, G.,Andrade, M. ve MacDonald, L. (2013). Risk communication, and the role of trust in the prevention and control of communicable disease: a review. Journal of Health Communication, 18(12), 1550-1565. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2013.840696.
• Chou, W. Y. S., Hunt, Y. M., Beckjord, E. B., Moser, R. P. ve Hesse, B. W. (2009). Social media use in the United States: Implications for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(4), e48.
• Covello. V. T, Winterfeldt, D. ve Slovic, P. (1986). Risk communication: A review of the literature. Risk Abstracts 3(4), 171-182.
• Covello, V. T. ve Sandman, P.M. (2001). Risk communication: evolution and revolution. P. A. Wolbarst (Ed.), Solutions to an Environment içinde (164-178), Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
• Covello, V. T., Peters, R. G., Wojtecki, J. G ve Hyde, R. C. (2001). Risk communication, the West Nile Virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: Responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 78(2), 382-392.
• Custers, K. (2015). The urgent matter of online pro-eating disorder content and children: Clinical practice. European Journal of Pediatrics, 174(4), 429-433.
• De Boer, J., Wouter Botzen, W. J ve Terpstra, T. (2014). Improving flood risk communication by focusing on prevention focused motivation. Risk Analysis, 34(2), 309-322.
• Fischhoff, B.(1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15(2),137-145. doi: 0272-4332/95/0400-0137$07.50/1.
• Fonkwo, P. N. (2008). Pricing infectious disease the economic and health implications of infectious diseases. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 9, 13-17.
• Gauthier, T. P. ve Spence, E. (2015). Instagram and clinical infectious diseases. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 61(1), 135-136.
• Glik, D. (2007). Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 33–54.
• Guidry, J. P., Jin, Y., Orr, C. A., Messner, M. ve Meganck, S. (2017). Ebola on Instagram and Twitter: how health organizations address the health crisis in their social media engagement. Public Relations Review, 43(3), 477-486.
• Hackett, A. J. (2008). Risk, its perception and the media: The MMR controversy. Community Practice, 81(7), 22–25.
• Hawn, C. (2009). Take two Aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Affairs, 28(2), 361-368.
• Holmes, B. J. (2008). Communicating about emerging infectious disease: The importance of research. Health, Risk & Society, 10(4), 349-360.
• Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G. ve Loscalzo, M. J. (2006). The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Education and Counseling, 61(2), 173-190.
• Huber, C., Finelli, L. ve Stevens, W. (2018). The economic and social burden of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 218(5), 698–704. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiy213.
• Idriss, S. Z., Kvedar, J. C. ve Watson, A. J. (2009). The role of online support communities: Benefits of expanded social networks to patients with psoriasis. Archives of Dermatology, 145(1), 46-51.
• Joffe, H. (2008). The power of visual material: Persuasion, emotion and identification. Diogenes, 55(1), 84-93.
• Kamel Boulos, M. N., Giustini, D. M. ve Wheeler, S. (2016). Instagram and WhatsApp in health and healthcare: An overview. Future Internet, 8(3), 37.
• Kaplan, A. M. ve Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
• Karimkhani, C., Connett, J., Boyers, L., Quest, T. ve Dellavalle, R. P. (2014). Dermatology on Instagram. Dermatology Online Journal, 20(7).
• Kata, A. (2010). A postmodern pandora's box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine, 28(7), 1709-1716.
• Kellens, W., Zaalberg, R., Neutens, T., Vanneuville, W. ve De Maeyer, P.(2011). An analysis of the public perception of flood risk on the Belgian coast. Risk Analysis, 31(7), 1055-1068.
• Khan, S.,Mishra, J. L., Lin, K.E. ve Doyle, E.H. (2017). Rethinking communication in risk interpretation and action. Natural Hazards, 88, 1709–1726. doi: 10.1007/s11069-017-2942-z,
• Krippendorff, K. (2009). The content analysis reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Kristiansen, I. S., Halvorsen, P. A. ve Gyrd-Hansen, D. (2007). Influenza pandemic: Perception of risk and individual precautions in a general population, cross sectional study. BMC Public Health, 7(1), 48.
• Leiss, W. (1996). Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, 85-94.
• Lindell, M. K. (2018). Communicating imminent risk. H. Rodríguez, Trainor J. ve W. Donner (Ed.) Handbook of Disaster Research içinde (449-477). New York: Springer.
• Longest, B. B. ve Rohrer, W. M. (2005). Communication between public health agencies and their external stakeholders. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 28, 189–217.
• Lovejoy, K. ve Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: how nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 337-353.
• Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2009). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: a ten-year reflective survey on dialogic Internet principles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 320-322.
• Naik, P. A. ve Raman, K. (2003). Understanding the impact of synergy in multimedia communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 375-388.
• National Research Council (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC:The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/1189.
• Neiger, B. L., Thackeray, R., Burton, S. H., Giraud-Carrier, C. G. ve Fagen, M. C. (2013). Evaluating social media’s capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: Use of Twitter metrics as a case study. Health Promotion Practice, 14(2), 157-162.
• Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). Content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
• Nobles, A. L., Leas, E. C., Noar, S., Dredze, M., Latkin, C. A., Strathdee, S. A. veAyers, J. W. (2020). Automated image analysis of Instagram posts: Implications for risk perception and communication in public health using a case study of# HIV. Plos One, 15(5), e0231155.
• O’Donnell, N. H. ve Willoughby, J. F. (2017). Photo-sharing social media for e-health: analysing perceived message effectiveness of sexual health information on Instagram. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 40(4), 149–159. doi: 10.1080/17453054.2017.1384995.
• O’Sullivan, J. J., Bradford, R. A., Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Rotko, P., Aaltonen, J., Waylen, K.ve Langan, S. J. (2012). Enhancing flood resilience through improved risk communications. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 12 (7), 2271-2282
• Palenchar, M. J. ve Heath, R. L. (2007). Strategic risk communication: adding value to society. Public Relations Review, 33, 120–129.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261-283.
• Paxton, P. (2007). Association memberships and generalized trust: A multilevel model across 31 countries. Social Forces, 86(1), 47-76.
• Rasmussen, S. A, Jamieson, D. J. ve Bresee, J. S. (2008). Pandemic influenza and pregnant women. Emerging Infectious Diseases,14, 95-100.
• Renn, O. ve Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. R. E. Kasperson ve P. J. M. Stallen (Ed.). Communicating Risks to the Public içinde (175-218), Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. ve Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
• Sandell, T., Sebar, B. ve Harris, N. (2013). Framing risk: Communication messages in the Australian and Swedish print media surrounding the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 41(8), 860-865.
• Sezgin, F. (2003). Kriz yönetimi. Kırgızistan Türkiye Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(1), 181-195.
• Shuchman, M. ve Wilkes, M.S. (1997). Medical scientists and health news reporting: a case of miscommunication. Ann. INtern Med, 126, 976-982.
• Slovic, P. (1997). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk assessment battlefield. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 59-100.
• Siegrist, M. (2019). Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literatüre. Erişim adresi: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/risa.13325, (15.09.2020).
• Sommerfeldt, E. J., Kent, M. L. ve Taylor, M. (2012). Activist practitioner perspectives of website public relations: why aren’t activist websites fulfilling the dialogic promise?. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 303-312.
• Springston, J. K. ve Weaver Lariscy, R. A. (2005). Public relations effectiveness in public health institutions. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 28, 218–245.
• Thakadu, O. T.,Kolawole, O. D., Sommer, C., Mthombeni, N. ve Ditlhakeng, P. (2017). Flood risk communication within flood prone communities of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Botswana Notes and Records, 49, 87-105.
• Tiggemann, M. ve Zaccardo, M. (2015). Exercise to be fit, not skinny: The effect of fitspiration imagery on women's body image. Body Image, 15, 61-67.
• Tözün, M. ve Sözmen, M. K. (2014). Halk sağlığı bakışı ile sağlık okuryazarlığı. Smyrna Tıp Dergisi, 48-54.
• Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Sağlık Bakanlığı. (2011). Sağlığın teşviki ve geliştirilmesine yönelik dönüm noktaları globalkonferanslardan bildiriler, Ankara: Bakanlık Yayın No:813.
• Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Sağlık Bakanlığı. (2021). Erişim adresi: https://covid19.saglik.gov.tr, (24.01.2021).
• Vaughan, E. ve Tinker, T. (2009). Effective health risk communication about pandemic influenza for vulnerable populations. AmJ Public Health, 99,332-324, doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.162537
• Yakut, İ. (2008). İletişim bilimi perspektifinden risk iletişimi stratejileri. İzmit: Umuttepe Yayınları.
• Ye, M., ve Lyu, Z. (2020). Trust, risk perception, and COVID-19 infections: evidence from multilevel analyses of combined original dataset in China. Social Science & Medicine, 265, 113517.
• Zahari, R.K. ve Ariffin, R. N. R. (2013). Risk communications: Flood-prone communities of Kualalumpur. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 17, 880-888.
• Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: institutional sources of economic structure, 1840-1920. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53-111.
• Washer, P. (2004). Representations of SARS in the British newspapers. Social Science & Medicine, 59(12), 2561-2571.
• We Are Social. (2020). Erişim adresi: https://wearesocial.com/digital-2020, (15.12.2020).
• Wise, K. (2001). Opportunities for public relations research in public health. Public Relations Review, 27, 475–487.
• World Health Organizations. (2020). Erişim adresi: https://www.who.int/health-topics/#H, (11.12.2020).
• Worldometers. (2021). Erişim adresi: https://worldometers.info, (05.01.2021).