Skip to main content

Messaging strategies for communicating health-related information in social media—a content and effectiveness analysis of organ donation posts on Instagram in Germany



Although organ transplantation is a very effective clinical solution to save the lives of patients suffering from organ failure, the supply of donated organs still cannot meet its growing demand. Educating the society about organ donation is a critical success factor in increasing donation rates, especially in countries that require potential donors to proactively register and opt-in (e.g., Germany). While social media has emerged as an effective tool for disseminating health information, recent evidence suggests that published organ donation content (both online and offline), aimed at raising awareness, still lacks effectiveness. To develop recommendations for optimizing organ donation messaging via social media, this study not only examines the current state of organ donation communication on Instagram, but also identifies factors that contribute to message effectiveness.


We conducted a retrospective content analysis to in-depth assess organ donation-related content published on Instagram in Germany between January and March 2022. Systematic coding allowed to identify common themes, sentiments, and communication strategies, which were analyzed for their effectiveness using linear regression analyses.


Of the 500 organ donation posts, 57% were published by institutional authors while the remainder was shared by private accounts. Most content was aimed at the general population and shared neutral (80%) or positive sentiments (17%). Transformative messages, positive emotions, posts published by the transplant recipient and the image of a human served as predictors for post effectiveness measured in terms of likes (p < 0.001) and comments (p < 0.01). Sharing personal experiences (p < 0.01) and highlighting the meaning of organ donations (p < 0.05) resulted in significantly higher audience engagement than any other topic discussed.


Our findings highlight the need for health officials to work closely with organ transplant recipients to publicly advocate for organ donations by sharing personal and transformative messages. The high share of posts published by transplant recipients indicates a certain openness to share personal experiences with broad audiences. Different message characteristics served as predictors for message effectiveness (i.e., increased audience engagement) which can likely be extrapolated to other health-related use cases (e.g., cancer screening).

Peer Review reports



Organ transplantations are a highly effective clinical solution [1] to save lives of patients with terminal organ failures [2, 3]. In 2021, about 28,000 organs were transplanted in the European Union (EU), with kidneys, livers, hearts and lungs being the most common [1, 4]. Despite new technological innovations in the medical field that increase the success rates of organ transplantations and the number of patients benefitting from them [5], the supply of donated organs still cannot meet the demand [1]. In 2020, 21 people in the EU have died every day waiting for an organ transplant while a new patient was added to the waitlist every ten minutes [4].

Transnational institutions such as the European Kidney Alliance (EKHA) aim to collectively increase organ donation rates in the EU, but success rates vary significantly within countries. [6]. Moreover, countries can be differentiated according to the organ donation system (i.e., opt-in versus opt-out) applied [6]. By default, opt-out systems consider everyone to be a potential organ donor unless the person has expressed explicit opposition before death [7]. Opt-in systems require explicit consent from the patient or their relatives [8, 9]. Prior research on the effect of the organ donation system on donation rates has found mixed evidence [6], some stating a positive effect of an opt-out legislation [8, 10] while others find no effect of the organ donation system on donor rates [6, 7]. Germany, a country with an opt-in system, lags behind other EU members in terms of organs donated per capita as shown in Fig. 1 [11].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Organ donations (excluding living donations) per million population in 2021 [12, 13]

Educating the public about the importance of organ donations is a critical success factor in increasing donation rates [14,15,16], particularly in opt-in countries where the public has to make an active decision on their donor status [17]. To inform the population about the importance of organ donations, Germany recently passed a new law asking physicians to inform patients about the possibility of becoming an organ donor [18]. Hereby, the legislation aims to address existing structural deficiencies [18] but may not reach its full potential to address all parts of the society equally, as most patients who seek medical attention are elderly people [19, 20].

The power of social media for health communication

Numerous studies highlight the importance of social media for sharing health information [21], not only regarding epidemic control and surveillance [22] but also to raise awareness about blood [23] and organ donations [24]. Currently, 50% of social media users already adjust the way they deal with their health based on information received via online platforms [22]. Especially, Millennials and Generation Z show a high level of trust in social media content [25, 26], which will make it an even more important source of information in the future. In 2017, 25% of surveyed young adults already believed that social media can provide them with useful health information, and half of them actively shared information on their health with the online community [27]. Not only trust but also time spent on social media is expected to increase over the few next years, beyond the roughly 2.5 h currently spent on an average day on any available platform [28].

Effective social media messaging strategies

As social media is an effective tool to distribute information to large audiences by speeding up and enriching communication [29], vast research has investigated factors contributing to social media message effectiveness [30, 31]. Higher levels of information [32], creativity [33] and emotion provided in advertisements increased user engagement across social media platforms (e.g., giving likes or sharing content) [34]. The theory of ‘transformational’ and ‘informational’ advertising suggests that human beings purchase products for either emotional (hedonic) or rational (utilitarian) reasons [35]. Hedonic or emotional appeals – also referred to as transformational advertising—rely on creating experiences for the potential customers (e.g., make them feel happy about a product) [35, 36] that influence people’s behavior [33] and make the content memorable [37]. Utilitarian or rational appeals – also referred to as informational advertising—are messages that inform people about the functional or rational benefits of a product [35, 36, 38]. Not only the messaging strategy (i.e., emotional versus rational appeals) determine whether a message is effective, but also the type of product displayed. Based on existing marketing research, informational advertisements are preferred for utilitarian products (i.e., functional and necessary products) and transformational advertisements for hedonic products (i.e., enjoyable, luxurious products) [39, 40]. Building upon this theory, one can consider organ donations, more specifically the donated organ, to be an utilitarian good (i.e., a lifesaving necessity) from the perspective of the transplant recipient and “society as a whole”. Moreover, from an utilitarian perspective, posthumous organ donations might be seen as the rationally, best action as they contribute to the best outcomes for everyone (i.e., lives being saved) [42]. Nonetheless, similar to blood donations, that are motivated by utilitarian as well as altruistic reasons [41], organ donations may also be motivated by altruism. From the perspective of a deceased organ donor, who does not directly benefit from the organ donation, it might be considered a hedonic good. Based on these assumptions, we aim to test whether organ donations will be more susceptible to informational or transformational advertising.

Current studies on organ donation message effectiveness on social media and research gap

Efforts to raise awareness about organ donation via social media platforms have—in experimental research—been proven successful in increasing target audiences’ willingness to donate organs [43] and the likelihood of registering as a donor [44]. A few strategies are particularly effective such as i) creating relevancy among the target audience (e.g., illustrating how message recipients or their close network may one day benefit of donations) [44], ii) revealing the recipient’s identity (e.g., illustrating a picture or name of the patient receiving the organs) [43] and iii) leveraging celebrity testimonials [45].

Despite theoretical knowledge about effective organ donation messages [43, 44, 46], past studies in different cultural settings identified a gap between messages displayed on (social) media and the most effective messages to increase organ donations [47, 48]. An assessment of 14 offline, public organ donation campaigns in Germany concludes that organ donation posters have little effectiveness and, in particular, cannot motivate undecided or donation-skeptical people to become active donors [49]. Celebrity endorsements which are known to be effective in providing health [45] and organ donation information [50] are underutilized: Celebrity advertisements, for example in the United States, account for only 10% of organ donation messages across media channels [51]. Likewise, previous work on organ donation messages on Chinese micro-blogging platform (i.e., Weibo) finds a mismatch between effective organ donation themes (i.e., ‘statistical descriptions of organ donations’ and ‘meaningfulness of donations’) and most frequently communicated themes (i.e., ‘organ donation behaviors’). Although the study provides important insights into organ donation information, it is unclear whether these findings are transferrable to other cultures and channels [48]. Negative media coverage, on the other hand, can also have significant effects on organ donation rates for example when organ donation scandals become public. Röck et al., (2017) found that the number of organ donors dropped significantly after a transplantation scandal was uncovered in Germany which not only highlights the need to adhere to professional and ethical standards [52] but also the importance of effective media campaigns to make up for negative press.

Most recent research on organ donations and social media has focused on micro-blogging platforms such as Twitter [53, 54] or Weibo [48], probably because data is more readily available (i.e., API downloads) for quantitative research [55]. However, studies assessing public health information on picture-sharing platforms (e.g., Instagram, Pinterest) are still scarce. Recent research calls for more insights on how best to use social media as a tool for health interventions [55] and what creative means (e.g., visualizations, types of narratives) should be included in health communication [56].

To our knowledge, no comparable study has yet qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the availability and effectiveness of organ donation information shared on the picture-sharing social media platform Instagram in Germany. In this research, we focus on two research questions: First, we aim to understand which organ donation information and campaigns are available on Instagram through a systematic content review. Second, we will examine the effectiveness of different messaging strategies, characteristics, and organ donation themes to derive practical implications for communicating organ donation, and possibly also other health-related topics aimed at raising public awareness.


We conducted a retrospective content analysis of 500 Instagram posts to understand the prevalence of organ donation posts and their effectiveness. Our study design most closely resembled Selzer et. al.’s research (2017), who analyzed 500 publicly available Instagram posts using criterion sampling [57].

Data collection

All Instagram posts with the hashtag #organspende (translated to English: #organ donation) that were posted from January 1 to March 7, 2022 were extracted using a criterion sampling approach [58]. We collected a sample of 500 posts, which exceeded the sample size of similar retrospective content analyses on Instagram [48, 59, 60]. We selected only posts in German language and excluded all duplicates and posts related to Swiss or Austrian content to limit the search to a geographical area.

As no legal API download was available at that time (caused by Instagram’s restrictive data regulations), we collected all Instagram posts manually. Due to the dynamic nature of social media, we collected the data via screenshots, similar to e.g., Gabarron et. al. [61] and Carotte et. al. [62], and saved it on a local drive. These screenshots allowed a static sample to be further analyzed. Additional information such as the source of the posts (i.e., author), number of likes and comments were manually recorded using Microsoft Excel.

Establishing the codebook

We developed a code book in Microsoft excel to record the categories of interest for each post. A first draft was built based on results of previous research, collecting binary variables (e.g., transformational versus informational [35], picture versus text [61], message sentiment [57] etc.) and key organ donation themes previously discovered on social media. For the latter, we classified the content topics into 5 categories: (1) personal experience, (2) meaning of the donation, (3) statistical description, (4) issues and policies with donations, and (5) organ donation knowledge [48]. The codebook was tested by the authors with 50% (n = 250) of the organ donation posts. In case a post could not be allocated to one existing topic, a new category was added to ensure the manual was suitable for the type of social media channel (i.e., Instagram) and country of interest selected (i.e., Germany). Three new categories emerged during this iterative process: (6) donation awareness, (7) merchandise/run, and (8) other. Detailed instructions for the coding exercise (incl. examples of coded themes) are provided in supplementary material 1.

Data coding

Two independent coders were trained on a subsample of 50 organ donation posts to ensure interrater reliability, measured using Cohen’s kappa, which is commonly used if two independent coders are present. For any coded variable (i.e., transformational/informational, message sentiment and key organ donation theme) that showed inter-coder reliability below 0.6 (> 0.60 indicating at least ‘substantial agreement’ according to Cohen’s kappa classification [63]), we resolved any controversy using the Delphi method [64]. Using this method, consensus was reached by engaging the author and the independent coders in a discussion.

Data analysis

We performed descriptive statistics in Microsoft excel to identify the posts’ authors and most common organ donation themes discussed. To measure the posts effectiveness, we used the audience’s engagement as a proxy which is well recognized in social media marketing research [33, 65]. We calculated the likes-to-follower ratio (Eff_post_l = number of likes_post/number of followers_account) as well as the comments-to-follower ratio (Eff_posts_c = number of comments_post/numbers of followers_account) to control for different numbers of followers per account (i.e., people being exposed to the post). As leveraged in previous academic research, this is an effective way to make post effectiveness (i.e., number of likes) comparable across multiple Instagram accounts, regardless of follower count [32, 55, 65]. We used linear regression models to analyze, the relationships between the independent variables (IV) (i.e., transformational/informational, image of a human, author of post, sentiment, content themes) and dependent variables (DV) (i.e., likes-to-follower ratio and comments-to-follower ratio). The effect size for each variable was determined using Cohen’s d [66]. For the linear regression analysis, we used the statistical software ‘Stata version 17’ with the significance level defined as p < 0.05.


Within the studied period (January 1 to March 7, 2022), a total of 593 Instagram posts with the hashtag #organspende (translated to English: #organ donation) were identified. 93 posts, which included duplicates or showed irrelevant content were removed. On average eight posts were published per day during the sample collection period after excluding duplicates and not relevant postings.

Descriptive statistics—Authors of organ donation messages

As shown in Table 1, most posts were published by institutional authors (57%), such as governmental organizations, hospitals, social associations, news stations or small businesses and aimed at the general population (97%) rather than health care professionals. Meanwhile celebrities posting about organ donations or sharing experiences played a minor role (< 1% of posts). The remaining proportion of posts (43%) was published by individual authors (e.g., mother telling the audience that her son has received a new organ transplant).

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of results

Critical role of transplant recipients

Organ recipients aimed to raise awareness about organ donations by sharing their personal experiences via Instagram. Almost one third of posts (27%) were published by the organ recipient or, in the case of small children being affected, by the recipient’s parents. Only 1% of organ donors (i.e., living donors) or families of organ donors actively promoted the topic via Instagram. All remaining posts (72%) were shared by a third party who was neither the donor nor the recipient of an organ transplant.

Sentiments range from predominantly neutral to positive

Instagram posts on organ donation mostly shared neutral (80%) or positive sentiments (17%) such as gratitude for a new transplant or joy about successfully managing a disease. Only 3% of posts shared a negative sentiment such as anger about donation laws and politics or sadness about diseases that require organ transplantations.

Personal experiences and donation awareness as major themes

Among the eight identified organ donation themes most discussed ‘personal experiences of donations’ (25%) and ‘donation awareness’ (20%) (i.e., authors sharing that they signed up for a donor card). The theme ‘knowledge on donations’ (18%) was the third most frequent topic discussed.

Regression analyses – message strategy, characteristics, content published by transplant recipients and themes as predictors for higher effectiveness

Transformational messages, positive sentiment, posts shared by transplant recipients, and image of a human increased the effectiveness of organ donation posts in terms of likes (p < 0.001) and comments (p < 0.01) in the linear regression analyses. As shown in Table 2, in each of the linear regressions, results remained significant (p < 0.01) when controlling for gender of the author as well as the size of the follower base. We found a large effect size (0.44) for the posts’ effectiveness (i.e., likes ratio) and type of message strategy (i.e., transformational) when applying Cohen’s d [66].

Table 2 Regression analyses

Increased engagement (i.e., likes) through messages highlighting personal experiences and meaning

Two of the eight reported organ donation themes, ‘personal experiences’ (p < 0.01, effect size large (0.59)) and ‘meaning for the organ donor’ (p < 0.05, effect size small (0.18)), showed a positive association with the posts’ effectiveness measured as likes-to-follower ratio in the multiple linear regression model. Both themes were closely related as they showed either the purpose of an organ donation for society, recipients, or donors or personal experiences with organ transplantations.


This study examined not only how social media picture-sharing platforms are currently leveraged to spread the knowledge about organ donations in an opt-in country with low organ donation rates (i.e., Germany), but also how post effectiveness (using user engagement as a proxy [33, 65]) varies depending on the message type. Our results confirm that different messaging characteristics (i.e., transformational, positive sentiment, image of a human) and content themes serve as predictors of higher audience engagement. We have, thus, built on Vanholder et al.’s call for further research on comparing educational organ donation campaigns (aimed at the general population) to derive practical implications [6].

The crucial role of transplant recipients as advocates for organ donation awareness

Our results support the practicality and importance of inviting organ transplant recipients to advocate for organ donations by sharing personal experiences. Some organ transplant recipients seem open to share their stories with a wider audience (i.e., the Instagram community), as almost one third of the posts was published directly by organ transplant recipients. We, therefore, shed some light on the question raised by Harel et. al. (2017) on whether organ transplant recipients are willing to share experiences with a wider audience [43]. What could potentially contribute to the willingness to share personal information are the specific characteristics of the platform (i.e., social media) studied. Since social media has caused a fundamental shift in the way people communicate today [67], people nowadays might be more open and trusting to share personal information [25] which could be leveraged when designing health campaigns on social media. While our study identified the relative share of posts revealing the organ recipient’s information out of the collected sample, it does not provide an answer about the willingness to share personal information of all patients who have ever received a transplant.

Sharing personal experiences and highlighting the meaning of organ donations received significantly higher engagement scores (i.e., likes ratios) than any other topic discussed which is consistent with previous qualitative and experimental studies. For example, disclosing the identity of the organ transplant recipient increased willingness to register as an organ donor [47], since reading about a person who has received a transplant induces thoughts of saving lives, as opposed to reading information about a deceased donor [43]. These findings seem to apply to other types of social media (i.e., micro-blogging) and cultural settings (i.e., China). Previous research on organ donations conducted on the social media platform Weibo in China confirms that creating meaning for the audience is most influential to drive community engagement [48]. Interestingly, the term ‘meaning’ was interpreted differently in the social media posts in the Chinese sample, where posts emphasized the meaning of organ donations from the perspective of the donor (or the donor’s family) [48]. In Germany, on the contrary, the ‘meaning’ was almost exclusively emphasized from the recipient’s point of view which might be due to the impact of different cultures on attitudes and behaviors [68] (i.e., sharing content on social media). For example, individualistic cultures (i.e., Germany [69]) value self-enhancement, which may be reflected in highlighting the importance of a donation to the recipient [68]. Cultures with low levels of individualism (i.e., collective cultures such as China [69]) in contrast value universalism which is defined as caring for the welfare of others [70]. This value may be reflected in posts that highlight the importance of donations to the organ donor (or donor’s family) as they demonstrate that they have contributed to the well-being of others. Nonetheless, further work is needed to unravel various aspects of culture on social media organ donation posts. Moreover, this paragraph already briefly touches upon the question on how different messages and content themes are perceived by the audience in a given cultural context. Another topic of high relevance is nonetheless the target audience’s actual motivation to donate (e.g., being altruistic, in need of a donor organ, trusting the system or wanting to save someone’s life) [71] or believes which likely influence the way they perceive the organ donation message. While cultural differences and motivators for donation may explain parts of the differing attitudes, another factor to consider is the individual’s religion, which might be for (e.g., Christianity or Hinduism) or against (e.g., ultraorthodox Haredim) organ donations [72]. Against this backdrop, future research will benefit from a more nuanced approach of for example examining organ donation message effectiveness in relation to the audience’s underlying attitudes, norms and believes as previously suggested by Noar et. al. (2007) in the context of public health messaging [73].

Messaging strategies and characteristics as predictors of higher post effectiveness

We identified three messaging features which predict higher chances of receiving likes or comments. First, organ donation messages with transformational content, that is known to trigger emotions in audiences [33, 37], were more effective in increasing engagement than posts providing informational content. Our results are consistent with a previous study that analyzed Facebook posts from Fortune 500 companies for their messaging strategy and effectiveness [35] and a study that evaluated Facebook posts from well-known corporate brands [74]. As Tafesse et al. (2018) argue, transformational posts may have a higher likelihood to foster consumer transformation because they leverage emotional and hedonic signals [74] that are known to positively influence content transmission [75]. Second, messages with a positive sentiment motivated a higher number of people to react to a post. This is not surprising, as social media posts that induced positive emotions (e.g., make someone ‘look good’ or make someone ‘feel happy’) were found to be more engaging to the audience and led to a higher likelihood of being shared with others [75, 76]. Third, the visual illustration of a human in the post had a positive impact on likes and comments ratios. Our results are consistent with previous scientific research, which states that images in the vicinity of text increases the readers’ attention to the information provided [77] (e.g., when receiving instructions on wound care [78]). Additionally, images of humans have enhanced advertisement effectiveness [79, 80] and overall engagement with social media content in a health context (i.e., anti-vaping campaigns) [81]. Previous research on public health media campaigns has shown that the effectiveness of such campaigns varies not only with the messaging strategy chosen, but also with the topic covered [48, 82]. In summary, our research thus contributes to existing literature as well as the imperative that health campaign messages should be designed based on scientific research [82] by identifying how certain messaging characteristics impact the effectiveness of organ donation campaigns. As we found some similarities to effective campaigns in other contexts (e.g., commercial or public health), we argue that public health authorities could learn from these existing campaigns that also employ the characteristics identified in this research.


Our research has some limitations which result from the methods applied. First, since no API download was available to collect and analyze posts automatically, we were limited to a rather small sample that could be analyzed manually. Future research could try to find solutions to increase sample size. Second, we used audience engagement (i.e., number of likes or shares) as a proxy for post effectiveness as done in similar studies [33, 65]. Previous research has found a strong link between social media interactions and message effectiveness [83, 84]. Nevertheless, our research cannot establish a causal link between organ donation message characteristics and actual organ donation behavior. Further studies could explore this relationship in experimental settings. Third, we used the follower base of the Instagram account which published the organ donation post to make the posts’ effectiveness comparable to each other. Adjusting for the number of interactions (i.e., likes) by the number of followers has been leveraged in previous studies [32, 55] but still has potential limitations. Instagram post can be not only read by the account followers, but also by people following a specific hashtag (e.g., ‘organ donations’). Therefore, additional people (i.e., non-followers) could have been exposed to a post, reducing post effectiveness. Fourth, given the method applied (i.e., manual collection of posts), we were not able to control for the composition of the account’s follower base (e.g., followers being friends or family with the author who might be more sensitized for organ donations). Therefore, one has to acknowledge that there may be a correlation between the follower composition and the absolute effectiveness of the post, which becomes particularly relevant when comparing the study results with other social media campaigns (e.g., the number of likes) outside of this study. To mitigate this bias, we do not look at the absolute but rather the relative effectiveness of the posts containing different message characteristics (e.g., comparing posts with versus without the picture of a human). Moreover, all of the discussed findings are robust when looking at small (e.g., private accounts with fewer followers) as well as large accounts (e.g., an NGO’s account with a large follower base). Furthermore, the reach of the authors within our sample, which ultimately attributes to the effectiveness, may significantly differ as private authors have significantly less followers than institutional authors have.


Considering its increasing importance, social media will lead to a fundamenta shift in health communication by changing the speed and type of interactions between health professionals and patients [67]. We, therefore, believe it is imperative that health authorities make extensive use of social media platforms when designing organ donation awareness campaigns; especially if they are aimed towards the younger generation. In doing so, the effectiveness of the message can be increased by applying the measures (i.e., image of a human, positive sentiment, published by recipient, personal experiences) highlighted in Figs. 2 and 3 as well as intensifying collaboration with transplant recipients.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Exemplary Instagram post highlighting predictors of high message effectiveness (permission for re-print received from rights holder) [85]

Fig. 3
figure 3

Exemplary Instagram post highlighting predictors of high message effectiveness (permission for re-print received from rights holder) [86]

Although our sample was limited to Germany, we assume that our results can be transferred to other nationalities with comparable value and believe systems which nonetheless requires further research. Moreover, we believe that our study has important implications for other (public) health-related interventions aimed to increase public awareness e.g., cancer screening which is a prerequisite to increase the likelihood of cancer survival (e.g., for ovarian or breast cancer), might be one example [87,88,89]. Previous research emphasizing the power of social media to disseminate cancer prevention, screening, and treatment messages to large audiences [90, 91], can be complemented by our results to increase message effectiveness (e.g., by asking patients to share experiences and importance of early detection). Nonetheless, our results may be most relevant for digital heath interventions targeting Millennials and Generation Z such as educative vaccination campaigns or information on sexually transmitted diseases. Further research may elaborate circumstances under which our identified messaging strategies support message effectiveness in the context of other health use cases.

Availability of data and materials

The raw data collected used for the content analysis of this study is not publicly available due to the sensitivity of the topic (i.e., organ donations) and potential privacy concerns (potential de-anonymization of Instagram posts). However, data can be made available upon request from the corresponding author. The coding manual can be found in supplement 1.



European Union


European Kidney Alliance


Independent variable


Dependent variable


  1. Lewis A, Koukoura A, Tsianos G-I, Gargavanis AA, Nielsen AA, Vassiliadis E. Organ donation in the US and Europe: the supply vs demand imbalance. Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2021;35:100585.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Linden PK. History of solid organ transplantation and organ donation. Crit Care Clin. 2009;25(1):165–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. DeRoos LJ, Zhou Y, Marrero WJ, Tapper EB, Sonnenday CJ, Lavieri MS, et al. Assessment of national organ donation rates and organ procurement organization metrics. JAMA Surg. 2021;156:173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Council of Europe. International figures on donation and transplantation. Accessed 28 June 2022.

  5. Nadel MS, Nadel CA. Using reciprocity to motivate organ donations. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics. 2005;5(1):293–327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vanholder R, Domínguez-Gil B, Busic M, Cortez-Pinto H, Craig JC, Jager KJ, et al. Organ donation and transplantation: a multi-stakeholder call to action. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2021;17:554–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Arshad A, Anderson B, Sharif A. Comparison of organ donation and transplantation rates between opt-out and opt-in systems. Kidney Int. 2019;95:1453–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Abadie A, Gay S. The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: a cross-country study. J Health Econ. 2006;25(4):599–620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Madden S, Collett D, Walton P, Empson K, Forsythe J, Ingham A, et al. The effect on consent rates for deceased organ donation in Wales after the introduction of an opt-out system. Anaesthesia. 2020;75:1146–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Shepherd L, O’Carroll RE, Ferguson E. An international comparison of deceased and living organ donation/transplant rates in opt-in and opt-out systems: a panel study. BMC Med. 2014;12:131.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Organspende-info.,38%2C0%20Organspenderinnen%20und%20Organspender. Accessed 21 Feb 2022.

  12. Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation. Accessed 30 May 2022.

  13. Scholz N. Organ donation and transplantation: facts, figures and European Union action; EPRS: European Parliamentary Research Service. Belgium. 2020. Retrieved from

  14. Terbonssen T, Settmacher U, Wurst C, Dirsch O, Dahmen U. Attitude towards organ donation in German medical students. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016;401:1231–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Morgan SE, Miller JK. Beyond the organ donor card: the effect of knowledge, attitudes, and values on willingness to communicate about organ donation to family members. Health Commun. 2002;14:121–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Friedersdorff F, Putz J. Organspende in Deutschland im Zeichen der neuen Gesetzgebung. Urologe. 2020;59:17–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Steenaart E, Crutzen R, de Vries NK. Beyond the ticked box: organ donation decision-making under different registration systems. Psychol Health. 2021;36:511–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Fehring Z, Boehme P, Wirth S, Fehring L. Die neue Gesetzgebung zur Organspende – Wirkung, Potenzial und Grenzen aus der Sicht klinisch tätiger Ärzt:innen. [New German laws on organ donation-clinicians’ perspectives on effects, potential and limitations]. Urologe A. 2021;60:1570–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Statista. Accessed 21 Feb 2022.

  20. Callahan EJ, Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ, Goodwin MA, Flocke SA, Bertakis KD. Physician-elder interaction in community family practice. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17:19–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Smailhodzic E, Hooijsma W, Boonstra A, Langley DJ. Social media use in healthcare: a systematic review of effects on patients and on their relationship with healthcare professionals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:442.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Schillinger D, Chittamuru D, Ramírez AS. From “Infodemics” to health promotion: a novel framework for the role of social media in public health. Am J Public Health. 2020;110:1393–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Abbasi RA, Maqbool O, Mushtaq M, Aljohani NR, Daud A, Alowibdi JS, Shahzad B. Saving lives using social media: analysis of the role of twitter for personal blood donation requests and dissemination. Telematics Inform. 2018;35:892–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Henderson ML, Adler JT, van Pilsum Rasmussen SE, Thomas AG, Herron PD, Waldram MM, et al. How should social media be used in transplantation? a survey of the American society of transplant surgeons. Transplantation. 2019;103:573–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Warner-Søderholm G, Bertsch A, Søderholm A. Data on social media use related to age, gender and trust constructs of integrity, competence, concern, benevolence and identification. Data Brief. 2018;18:696–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Danielle G. Relationship, trust and crisis communication on social media with millennials and generation Z. Diss: Kansas State University; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hausmann JS, Touloumtzis C, White MT, Colbert JA, Gooding HC. Adolescent and young adult use of social media for health and its implications. J Adolesc Health. 2017;60:714–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Average Time Spent Daily on Social Media. Accessed 31 May 2022.

  29. Hawn C. Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: how Twitter, Facebook, and other social media are reshaping health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28:361–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Iankova S, Davies I, Archer-Brown C, Marder B, Yau A. A comparison of social media marketing between B2B, B2C and mixed business models. Ind Mark Manage. 2019;81:169–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Felix R, Rauschnabel PA, Hinsch C. Elements of strategic social media marketing: a holistic framework. J Bus Res. 2017;70:118–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pletikosa Cvijikj I, Michahelles F. Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages. Soc Netw Anal Min. 2013;3:843–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee J, Hong IB. Predicting positive user responses to social media advertising: The roles of emotional appeal, informativeness, and creativity. Int J Inf Manage. 2016;36:360–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schreiner M, Fischer T, Riedl R. Impact of content characteristics and emotion on behavioral engagement in social media: literature review and research agenda. Electron Commer Res. 2021;21:329–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cadet FT, Aaltonen PG, Kavota V. The advertisement value of transformational & informational appeal on company Facebook pages. Mark Manage J. 2017;27(2):116–30.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Albers-Miller ND, Stafford MR. An international analysis of emotional and rational appeals in services vs goods advertising. J Consum Mark  1999;16(1):42–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Bakalash T, Riemer H. Exploring ad-elicited emotional arousal and memory for the ad using fMRI. J Advert. 2013;42:275–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Johar JS, Sirgy MJ. Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: when and why to use which appeal. J Advert. 1991;20:23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lu J, Liu Z, Fang Z. Hedonic products for you, utilitarian products for me. Judgm Decis. 2016;11(4):332–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kivetz R, Simonson I. Earning the right to indulge: effort as a determinant of customer preferences toward frequency program rewards. J Mark Res. 2002;39:155–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ben Natan M, Gorkov L. Investigating the factors affecting blood donation among Israelis. Int Emerg Nurs. 2011;19:37–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Morris J, Holt J. Applying utilitarianism to the presumed consent system for organ donation to consider the moral pros and cons. British journal of nursing. 2021;30(19):1127–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Harel I, Kogut T, Pinchas M, Slovic P. Effect of media presentations on willingness to commit to organ donation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:5159–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. D’Alessandro AM, Peltier JW, Dahl AJ. Use of social media and college student organizations to increase support for organ donation and advocacy: a case report. Prog Transplant. 2012;22:436–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Myrick JG. Identification and emotions experienced after a celebrity cancer death shape information sharing and prosocial behavior. J Health Commun. 2017;22:515–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Terbonssen T, Settmacher U, Wurst C, Dirsch O, Dahmen U. Effectiveness of organ donation information campaigns in germany: a facebook based online survey. Interact J Med Res. 2015;4:e16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Harel I, Kogut T. The Effect of the number and identification of recipients on organ-donation decisions. Front Psychol. 2021;12:794422.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Jiang X, Jiang W, Cai J, Su Q, Zhou Z, He L, Lai K. Characterizing media content and effects of organ donation on a social media platform: content analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21:e13058.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Hansen SL, Pfaller L, Schicktanz S. Critical analysis of communication strategies in public health promotion: an empirical-ethical study on organ donation in Germany. Bioethics. 2021;35:161–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hay M, Donnelly A. Encouraging organ donation in the antipodes: the impact of a high profile "celebrity organ donation on organ donation registration in Australia. Annual Conference of the European Health Psychology Society. 2005.

  51. Randhawa G. Organ donation and transplantation - public policy and clinical perspectives, BoD–Books on demand. 2012. p. 191–216.

  52. Röck D, Petersen P, Yoeruek E, Thaler S, Bartz-Schmidt KU, Röck T. Effect of organ scandal on corneal donation rate and organ donors at a German University Hospital. Ann Transplant. 2017;22:425–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ruck JM, Henderson ML, Eno AK, van Pilsum Rasmussen SE, DiBrito SR, Thomas AG, et al. Use of Twitter in communicating living solid organ donation information to the public: an exploratory study of living donors and transplant professionals. Clin Transplant. 2019;33:e13447.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. dos Santos SPL, Martínez GFC. Promoting organ donation on the Twitter platform: an exploratory analysis in Ecuador. Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação. 2020;E33:351–60.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Fung IC-H, Blankenship EB, Ahweyevu JO, Cooper LK, Duke CH, Carswell SL. Public health implications of image-based social media: a systematic review of instagram, pinterest, tumblr, and flickr. Perm J. 2020;24:18.307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Berg SH, O’Hara JK, Shortt MT, Thune H, Brønnick KK, Lungu DA, et al. Health authorities’ health risk communication with the public during pandemics: a rapid scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Seltzer EK, Horst-Martz E, Lu M, Merchant RM. Public sentiment and discourse about Zika virus on Instagram. Public Health. 2017;150:170–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Moser A, Korstjens I. Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. part 3: sampling, data collection and analysis. Eur J Gen Pract. 2018;24:9–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Cherian R, Le G, Whall J, Gomez S, Sarkar U. Content shared on social media for national cancer survivors day 2018. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0226194.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Heineman B, Jewell M, Moran M, Bradley K, Spitzer KA, Lindenauer PK. Content analysis of promotional material for asthma-related products and therapies on Instagram. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2021;17:26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Gabarron E, Bradway M, Fernandez-Luque L, Chomutare T, Hansen AH, Wynn R, Årsand E. Social media for health promotion in diabetes: study protocol for a participatory public health intervention design. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Carrotte ER, Prichard I, Lim MSC. “Fitspiration” on Social Media: a content analysis of gendered images. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Lin X, Genest C, Banks DL, Molenberghs G, Scott DW, Wang J-L, editors. Lessons in biostatistic, present, and future of statistical science: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2014. p. 359–72.

  64. Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the delphi method to the use of experts. Manage Sci. 1963;9(3):458–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wahid RM, Wadud M. Social media marketing on instagram: when is the most effective posting timing? EPRA Int J Multidisip Res (IJMR). 2020:312–21.

  66. Gignac GE, Szodorai ET. Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality Individ Differ. 2016;102:74–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Farsi D. Social media and health care, part I: literature review of social media use by health care providers. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:e23205.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Gregory GD, Munch JM, Peterson M. Attitude functions in consumer research: comparing value–attitude relations in individualist and collectivist cultures. J Bus Res. 2002;55:933–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hofstede Geert. Cultural constraints in management theories. Acad Manag Perspect. 1993;7(1):81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Schwartz SH. Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe. J Cross Cult Psychol. 2007;38:711–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Scandroglio B, Domínguez-Gil B, López JS, Valentín MO, Martín MJ, Coll E, et al. Analysis of the attitudes and motivations of the Spanish population towards organ donation after death. Transpl Int. 2011;24:158–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Oliver M, Ahmed A, Woywodt A. Donating in good faith or getting into trouble Religion and organ donation revisited. World J Transplant. 2012;2:69–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:673–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Tafesse W, Wien A. Using message strategy to drive consumer behavioral engagement on social media. JCM. 2018;35:241–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Berger J. What makes online content viral? Strateg Dir. 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Yuki T. What makes brands’ social content shareable on facebook? JAR. 2015;55:458–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG, Loscalzo MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61:173–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Delp C, Jones J. Communicating information to patients: the use of cartoon illustrations to improve comprehension of instructions. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3:264–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Xiao L, Ding M. Just the faces: exploring the effects of facial features in print advertising. Mark Sci. 2014;33:338–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Cyr D, Head M, Larios H, Pan B. Exploring human images in website design: a multi-method approach. MIS quarterly. 2009:539–566.

  81. Gao Y, Xie Z, Sun L, Xu C, Li D. Characteristics of and user engagement with antivaping posts on instagram: observational study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2021;7:e29600.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Wakefield MA, Loken B, Hornik RC. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet. 2010;376:1261–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Kumar A, Bezawada R, Rishika R, Janakiraman R, Kannan PK. From social to sale: the effects of firm-generated content in social media on customer behavior. J Mark. 2016;80:7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Rishika R, Kumar A, Janakiraman R, Bezawada R. The effect of customers’ social media participation on customer visit frequency and profitability: an empirical investigation. Inf Syst Res. 2013;24:108–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Anonymous. Figure 1: Exemplary organ donation post []. Accessed 28 Jun 2022.

  86. Anonymous. Figure 2: Exemplary organ donation post []. Accessed 28 Jun 2022.

  87. Rooth C. Ovarian cancer: risk factors, treatment and management. Br J Nurs. 2013;22(17):23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Elghazaly H. The first BGICC consensus and recommendations for breast cancer awareness, early detection and risk reduction in low-and middle-income countries and the MENA region. Int J Cancer. 2021;149(3):505–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Bleyer A, Baines C, Miller AB. Impact of screening mammography on breast cancer mortality. Int J Cancer. 2016;138:2003–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Xu S, Markson C, Costello KL, Xing CY, Demissie K, Llanos AAM. Leveraging social media to promote public health knowledge: example of cancer awareness via twitter. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2016;2:e17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Thackeray R, Burton SH, Giraud-Carrier C, Rollins S, Draper CR. Using Twitter for breast cancer prevention: an analysis of breast cancer awareness month. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:508.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to thank the publisher of the organ donation posts (shown in Figs. 2 and 3) for their permission to reprint the images in our article. Moreover, we would like to acknowledge Georg Lintner’s support during data collection and analysis and thank him for the support.


Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. There was no external funding available to the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



AO and LF conceptualized the research and authored the article. AO collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data. CB coded the organ donation posts and supported data analysis and interpretation. BF supported data collection and proof-read the paper. LF and JE gave guidance on project design and supervised the research. JE revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leonard Fehring.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable for publicly available data.

Consent for publication

The authors received informed consent to publish Figs. 2 and 3 (Instagram posts) as a re-print. Informed consent was given in writing by the original authors of the Instagram post.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Olsacher, A., Bade, C., Ehlers, J. et al. Messaging strategies for communicating health-related information in social media—a content and effectiveness analysis of organ donation posts on Instagram in Germany. BMC Public Health 23, 867 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: