Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Tailored public health messages increase intention for safe behaviours in vulnerable populationsAnimated messages boost safe behavior plans in vulnerable groups better than talking heads

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Animation visual stimuli increase intention for safe behaviours versus talking heads in vulnerable populations.

This randomised controlled trial enrolled 358 participants from vulnerable populations using an online survey setting. The intervention involved tailored public health messages delivered by a general practitioner or community representative. Visual stimuli included either an animation or a talking head. The comparator included other intervention combinations involving different providers and visual formats. The primary outcome measured intention to undertake and encourage family and friends to undertake context-specific safe behaviours.

Participants exposed to animation visual stimuli were more likely to report higher intention to perform COVID-safe behaviours compared to those exposed to a talking head. The effect size was Coef = -0.12, β = -0.12. The 95% CI for this difference was -0.22 to -0.01 with a p value of 0.03. No main effect was observed regarding who provided the message. Several interaction effects were noted across population subgroups for each intervention.

Safety data were not reported. No adverse events, serious adverse events, discontinuations, or tolerability issues were documented. The study design supports causal inference for the reported associations. Additional costs and time-delays for preparing subgroup-specific materials warrant consideration. A one-size-fits-all approach should not be used and is inequitable. The approach best suited for different vulnerable subgroups varies across each group.

People in vulnerable situations need clear messages to stay safe during health crises. This trial tested if moving images work better than talking heads to get people to plan safe actions. The study involved 358 participants who took part in an online survey. They watched either an animation or a talking head video delivered by a doctor or community member.

The results showed a clear difference in what people planned to do. Those who saw the animation reported a higher intention to encourage family and friends to act safely. The talking head videos did not have the same effect. No matter who delivered the message, the animation still performed better.

However, the study found that different groups responded differently to the messages. This means a single message for everyone does not work. Preparing specific materials for different groups takes extra time and money. Researchers say we must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach because it is unfair and ineffective.

This trial supports the idea that moving images help people plan better. Yet, the best strategy changes depending on the specific group you are trying to reach. We must tailor our messages carefully to help everyone stay safe.

What this means for you:
Animations boost safe behavior plans better than talking heads, but messages must be tailored to each group.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 358
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the impact of 'who' delivers a health message (general practitioner or community representative), and the 'visual stimulus' (animation or talking head) used on influencing attitudes toward safe behaviours in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, across six vulnerable population subgroups STUDY DESIGN: A 'helix' randomised controlled trial with 2x2 factorial design. METHODS: Participants (40 per subgroup) were randomly allocated within their subgroup to an intervention sequence. They completed a factorial, counter-balanced allocation of four intervention combinations across four safe behaviour contexts. Exposure to each intervention was followed by online survey questions investigating intention to undertake, and encourage family and friends to undertake, the context-specific behaviour using a 5-point Likert-style scale RESULTS: A total of 358 participants responded to requests to participate in the study, of whom 298 (83%) fully completed and 58 (16%) partially completed surveys. Participants were more likely to report higher intention to perform COVID-safe behaviours when exposed to animation compared to talking head visual stimuli (Coef = -0·12, 95% CI = -0·22 to -0·01, p = 0·03; β = -0.12, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.01, p = .03, animation > talking head) There was no main effect of 'who' provided the message; however, several interaction effects were noted across population subgroups for each intervention. CONCLUSION: The approach best suited for different vulnerable subgroups varies across each, indicating a one-size-fits-all approach should not be used and is inequitable. However, the additional costs and time-delays that would be encountered in preparing subgroup-specific materials also warrant consideration.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.