This retrospective case study describes our experiences, processes, and lessons learned using social media for pandemic response. Our team created and maintained a large Facebook group, and we used this platform to support grassroots advocacy, public health messaging, and health equity during the COVID-19 pandemic in South Carolina. The Facebook group was initially formed to urge local and state leaders to implement a stay-at-home order, but we recognized a continued need for our virtual space. Group leaders performed tasks including data tracking/reporting and content review/approval. Initial advocacy successes included the stay-at-home order, efforts to limit transmission, and social/mental health support. As the Delta variant emerged, we posted vaccine education and access information and supported school mitigation, including a successful litigation effort that led to a mask requirement on school buses. With the Omicron variant, our group’s focus shifted to educating about immune evasion, transmissibility, and individual protection. This included updates on mask use, antigen testing, vaccine boosters, treatment, data reports, and vaccines. Throughout the pandemic, we addressed health equity, especially for those identifying as disabled. We learned that virtual communities could support each other and improve public health, even when disinformation was present and elected officials emphasized politics over science.
AlbrechtS. S.AronowitzS. V.ButtenheimA. M.ColesS.DowdJ. B.HaleL.KumarA.LeiningerL.RitterA. Z.SimanekA. M.WhelanC. B.JonesM. (2022). Lessons learned from Dear Pandemic, a social media-based science communication project targeting the COVID-19 infodemic. Public Health Reports, 137(3), 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549221076544
2.
Al-TaieM. Z.AliA. (2017). A self-organizing communication model for disaster risk management. International Journal of Advances in Soft Computing & Its Applications, 9(2), 17–30.
3.
BálintG.Vörös-HorváthB.SzéchenyiA. (2022). Omicron: Increased transmissibility and decreased pathogenicity. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 7, Article 151. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-022-01009-8
4.
BeneM. (2017). Influenced by peers: Facebook as an information source for young people. Social Media + Society, 3(2), 2056305117716273. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117716273
5.
BessiA.ZolloF.VicarioM. D.PuligaM.ScalaA.CaldarelliG.UzziB.QuattrociocchiW. (2016). Users polarization on Facebook and Youtube. PLOS ONE, 11(8), Article e0159641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159641
BradshawA. S.SheltonS. S.WollneyE.TreiseD.AugusteK. (2021). Pro-Vaxxers get out: Anti-vaccination advocates influence undecided first-time, pregnant, and new mothers on Facebook. Health Communication, 36(6), 693–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1712037
CollinsP. H. (2013). On intellectual activism. Temple University Press.
12.
ConradE. J.BeckerM.PowellB.HallK. C. (2020). Improving health promotion through the integration of technology, crowdsourcing, and social media. Health Promotion Practice, 21(2), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839918811152
GaoJ.ZhengP.JiaY.ChenH.MaoY.ChenS.WangY.FuH.DaiJ. (2020). Mental health problems and social media exposure during COVID-19 outbreak. PLOS ONE, 15(4), Article e0231924. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231924
17.
GeorgeD. R.RovniakL. S.KraschnewskiJ. L. (2013). Dangers and opportunities for social media in medicine. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 56(3), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e318297dc38
18.
GilliganC. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.
HorowitzJ. (2017). Who is this “We” you speak of? Grounding activist identity in social psychology. Socius, 3, 2378023117717819. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117717819
21.
JaggarA. M. (1995). Caring as a feminist practice of moral reason [1995]. In HeldV. (Ed.), Justice and care (pp. 179–202). Routledge.
22.
KoçakN. G.KayaS.ErolE. (2013). Social media from the perspective of Diffusion of Innovation Approach. The Macrotheme Review: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Global Macro Trends, 2(3), 22–29.
23.
KohK.-K.ChanL. L.TanE.-K. (2020). Messaging fatigue and desensitisation to information during pandemic. Archives of Medical Research, 51(7), 716–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcmed.2020.06.014
24.
LeungT. Y. M.ChanA. Y. L.ChanE. W.ChanV. K. Y.ChuiC. S. L.CowlingB. J.GaoL.GeM. Q.HungI. F. N.IpM. S. M.IpP.LauK. K.LauC. S.LauL. K. W.LeungW. K.LiX.LuoH.ManK. K. C.NgV.. . .WongI. C. K. (2020). Short- and potential long-term adverse health outcomes of COVID-19: A rapid review. Emerging Microbes & Infections, 9(1), 2190–2199. https://doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2020.1825914
25.
LewinK. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (CartwrightD., Ed.). Harpers.
26.
MaleckiK. M. C.KeatingJ. A.SafdarN. (2021). Crisis communication and public perception of COVID-19 risk in the era of social media. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 72(4), 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa758
27.
MaslowA. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Van Nostrand.
28.
MillerJ. B. (1987). Toward a new psychology of women (2nd ed.). Beacon Press.
PyszczynskiT.LockettM.GreenbergJ.SolomonS. (2021). Terror management theory and the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167820959488
RaskinJ. D.EfranJ. S. (2021). The coronavirus in context guidance for psychotherapists during a pandemic. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/0022167820937509
33.
RogersC. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Houghton Mifflin.
34.
RogersC. R. (1980). A way of being. Houghton Mifflin.
35.
RogersE. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). Free Press.
36.
SaleemR.MorrillZ.KarterJ. M. (2021b). Introduction to the special issue on radical humanism, critical consciousness, and social change. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 61(6), 851–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022167819878912
SimsaR.RamederP.AghamanoukjanA.TotterM. (2019). Spontaneous volunteering in social crises: Self-organization and coordination. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(2_suppl), 103S–122S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018785472
39.
SoboE. J.HuhnA.SannwaldA.ThurmanL. (2016, Mar22). Information curation among vaccine cautious parents: Web 2.0, Pinterest thinking, and pediatric vaccine choice. Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness, 35(6), 529–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2016.1145219
StarbirdK.PalenL. (2011, May 7). “Voluntweeters”: Self-organizing by digital volunteers in times of crisis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011, pp. 1071–1080). Vancouver, BC, Canada. ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979102
46.
TsaoS.-F.ChenH.TisseverasingheT.YangY.LiL.ButtZ. A. (2021). What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: A scoping review. The Lancet Digital Health, 3(3), e175–e194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30315-0
47.
TwiggJ.MoselI. (2017). Emergent groups and spontaneous volunteers in urban disaster response. Environment and Urbanization, 29(2), 443–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247817721413
VentolaC. L. (2014). Social media and health care professionals: Benefits, risks, and best practices. Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 39(7), 491–520.
50.
WangY.HaoH.PlattL. S. (2021). Examining risk and crisis communications of government agencies and stakeholders during early-stages of COVID-19 on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, Article 106568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106568
51.
WebbH.JirotkaM.StahlB. C.HousleyW.EdwardsA.WilliamsM.ProcterR.RanaO.BurnapP. (2017). The ethical challenges of publishing Twitter data for research dissemination. Presented at WEbSci’17: ACM Web Science Conference. Troy, NY, USA. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Web Science Conference (pp. 339–348). ACM Digital Library. https://doi.org/10.1145/3091478.3091489
52.
WielandM. L.AsieduG. B.NjeruJ. W.WeisJ. A.LantzK.AbbenyiA.MolinaL.AhmedY.OsmanA.GoodsonM.Torres-HerbeckG.NurO.Porraz CapetilloG.MohamedA. A.SiaI. G. (2022). Community-engaged bidirectional crisis and emergency risk communication with immigrant and refugee populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Reports, 137(2), 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549211065514
53.
WilliamsL.MacDonaldB.RollinsL.JanssenL. F.GrealyM.KirkA.YoungD.FlowersP. (2021). Sharing positive behavior change made during COVID-19 lockdown: A mixed-methods coproduction study. Health Psychology, 40(10), 655–665. https://doi.org.1037/hea0001130
54.
WukichC.SteinbergA. (2013). Nonprofit and public sector participation in self-organizing information networks: Twitter hashtag and trending topic use during disasters. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 4(2), 83–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12036
55.
YterM.MurilloD.GeorgiouA. (2022). Bounded solidarity as an asset for public health care intervention. Qualitative Health Research, 32(3), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211057081
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
