Social Media as a Tool for Promoting Inclusion: An Analysis of the

Facebook and Instagram Pages of Inclusive Spaces

Francisca Rocha Lourenço

, Rita Oliveira

and Oksana Tymoshchuk

DigiMedia, Department of Communication and Art, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Keywords: Social Media, Content Analysis, Inclusive Spaces, Inclusion, Facebook, Instagram, Engagement.

Abstract: This study explores the use of social media platforms, specifically Facebook and Instagram, by Inclusive

Spaces (IS) to promote social and digital inclusion. Through a mixed-methods approach, combining

quantitative analysis of engagement metrics and qualitative content analysis, the research examines how IS

use different types and formats of content to engage audiences and disseminate inclusive practices. The results

reveal that visual content, especially images, dominates posts on both platforms, with solidarity and record-

orientated content generating the highest engagement averages per post. Instagram stands out as the platform

with higher overall interaction rates compared to Facebook, despite a lower presence among ISs. The study

identifies a strong emotional and relational appeal in solidarity content, highlighting its effectiveness in

fostering public engagement. In addition, differences in platform functionality influence content strategies,

with Instagram favouring collaborative and visually dynamic posts. The results emphasise the potential of

social media as a tool for increasing the visibility of SI initiatives and strengthening community involvement

in inclusive causes.

1 INTRODUCTION

This paper aims to analyse the use of Facebook and

Instagram pages by Inclusive Spaces (IS) to promote

inclusion. Through a content analysis, the aim is to

understand how these platforms are used to engage

communities, disseminate knowledge and promote

inclusive practices. In essence, this research seeks to

answer the following question: how do IS Facebook

and Instagram pages use different types and formats

of content to promote their goals and engage their

target audience?

The goals of this study are to identify the main

topics covered in the posts, analyse the content

formats used, determine which formats and types of

content generate the most engagement from the target

audience, and compare the communication strategies

used on Facebook and Instagram.

This study thus aims to deepen understanding of

the role of social media as a tool to promote inclusion,

providing valuable insights that can guide other

organisations to adopt more effective and engaging

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0214-3008

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6041-9469

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8054-8014

communication practices to promote IS, and ensure,

through their access, inclusion. Applying these

practices will allow IS to disseminate their services

more effectively, increase their visibility and,

consequently, attract more people. By attracting a

wider audience, access to the resources on offer is

increased and the promotion of social and digital

inclusion is strengthened (Rocha Lourenço et al.,

2023).

This paper is divided into six sections. After this

introduction, Section 2 presents the theoretical

framework, reviewing relevant studies on the use of

social media and inclusive spaces. Section 3 discusses

the methodology used, describing the sample

selection process, the data collection strategies and

the analytical approach. In section 4, the main results

are presented, revealing the presence of the analysed

spaces on different digital platforms, and presenting

standards in the types and goals of content and

engagement on the Facebook and Instagram pages of

IS. Section 5 offers a discussion of these results in the

context of the literature, highlighting the main ideas

Lourenço, F. R., Oliveira, R. and Tymoshchuk, O.

Social Media as a Tool for Promoting Inclusion: An Analysis of the Facebook and Instagram Pages of Inclusive Spaces.

DOI: 10.5220/0013440000003938

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health (ICT4AWE 2025), pages 141-152

ISBN: 978-989-758-743-6; ISSN: 2184-4984

141

and implications. Finally, Section 6 presents the

conclusions, summarising the contributions of the

study, its limitations and future research directions.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The use of social media has increased significantly in

recent years. This growth is evidenced by the increase

in the number of users and the frequency of

interactions on various platforms (Titisuk,

Vajarapongse & Thongwon, 2023). This involvement

with social media is not limited to social interactions;

it extends to various sectors, including education and

health, where they are used to disseminate

information and involve the community (Gatewood et

al., 2020; Rijal et al., 2024).

In this scenario, social media offer a dynamic and

participatory space that can be used to promote

inclusion. In fact, Katunga et al. argue that the

strategic use of social media can significantly

increase the reach and effectiveness of inclusion

initiatives (Katunga et al., 2019).

Social inclusion is a fundamental goal in modern

societies, aimed at ensuring that all individuals,

regardless of their personal or social characteristics,

have equal access to opportunities and resources

(World Bank, 2013). Social media, due to their

interactive and comprehensive nature, can be

effective tools for promoting this goal (Terry et al.,

2023; Katunga et al., 2019).

Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, which

are already an integral part of many people's lives and

influence their modes of interaction, access to

information and social participation, have been used

by organisations, social movements and community

groups to disseminate messages of inclusion and

diversity, enabling them to reach a wide audience

(Ellison & Boyd, 2013, Katunga et al., 2019). In

addition, studies indicate that targeted campaigns and

content on social media can raise awareness of social

issues and foster a more inclusive environment.

(Katunga et al., 2019). Particularly in the context of

Inclusive Spaces (IS), the use of social media allows

more people to find out about the services available

and the benefits of assistive technologies, facilitating

their social and digital inclusion and improving their

quality of life (Katunga et al., 2019; Rocha Lourenço

et al., 2023).

IS are environments designed to promote the

inclusion of all people, eliminating barriers and

considering the diversity of needs (Palatna, 2019).

These spaces are accessible and usable by everyone,

regardless of their physical, sensory or cognitive

abilities, fostering active social participation,

integration, equal opportunities and a sense of

belonging, which are essential for the well-being and

quality of life of People with Disabilities (PwD)

(Rocha Lourenço, Oliveira & Tymoshchuk, 2024;

Hung et al., 2021; BDU, 2024). IS can take many

forms and functions, including disability support

associations, digital inclusion centres, education and

rehabilitation cooperatives, medical and technology

centres, which provide essential approaches, services

and resources to support the autonomy, accessibility

and well-being of PwD.

However, the potential of social media to promote

inclusion depends on how they are used. Creating

relevant and engaging content is crucial to capturing

the public's attention and encouraging participation

(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Katunga et al., 2019).

Content that meets the needs and interests of the

community is more likely to generate response and

engagement, facilitating communication and active

participation (Katunga et al., 2019). It is also

important to tailor content to the target audience and

adapt it to their needs, using accessible formats and

languages that are representative of the target

audience's experiences. Finally, it is important to post

consistently and regularly, to use visual and

interactive media to increase the attractiveness and

clarity of messages, and to integrate user feedback

(Katunga et al., 2019).

However, there is a gap in research into how IS

specifically uses Facebook and Instagram to achieve

its goals. There is a lack of systematic understanding

of which types and formats of content are most

effective for engaging communities, raising

awareness and promoting social and digital inclusion.

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

To explore IS's use of social media, this study adopts

a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative

techniques to record reach and interaction metrics,

and qualitative techniques, focusing on content

analysis to explore how the content shared on IS's

Facebook and Instagram pages can promote

inclusion.

3.2 Sample

The sample consisted of 16 IS, recognised for their

work in promoting the social and digital inclusion

PwD, including Disability Support Associations (5),

ICT4AWE 2025 - 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health

142

Digital Inclusion Resource Centers (2), ICT Resource

Center (2), Social Inclusion Support Center (1),

Cooperative for the Education and Rehabilitation of

People with Disabilities (1), Medical and

Rehabilitation Centre (1), Technology and Innovation

Centre (1), Telecommunications Company (1) and

Assistive Technology, Occupational Performance

Laboratory (1) and Assistive Technology Developer

(1).

15 of these spaces are present on Facebook and 9

on Instagram. The criteria for selecting the pages

included: i) being official IS pages that promote

inclusion; ii) relevance to the topic; iii) being pages

from IS located in Portuguese-speaking countries; iv)

availability of publicly accessible data for analysis.

To ensure the anonymisation and confidentiality

of the data collected, the IS participating in this study

were identified and coded using the letters A to P.

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection for this study was carried out

exclusively from the posts available on IS's public

Facebook and Instagram pages. The approach was

structured to capture shared content, identify

publication patterns and assess the impact of these

practices.

To this end, data collection was divided into five

stages. The first stage was to select the IS that were to

be analyzed.

This was followed by an analysis of the presence

of these spaces on the social media Facebook and

Instagram, to understand which of these platforms

these IS are active on.

The third step was to collect and record the

dynamics and metrics of each space on the two

platforms, according to the data publicly available on

each of them. The role of social media marketing

dynamics and metrics is crucial for evaluating the

effectiveness of campaigns, as well as optimising

strategies (Kočišová & Štarchoň, 2023). Thus, with

the goal of understanding the social media

performance of the IS pages participating in the study,

the following reach metrics were analysed: number of

followers on Facebook, and number of followers and

total posts on Instagram; and the following interaction

metrics: total number of posts, total likes, total

comments, total shares (Facebook only), total

interactions (likes + comments + shares (Facebook

only)), average likes per post, average comments per

post, average shares per post, and Engagement Rate

(ER). To facilitate this analysis, a time window was

set for the analysis period (April 2024) - the month

before the month in which the analysis began - which

allowed for focused, up-to-date and detailed

observation of communication activities and

provided a sample significant enough to identify

patterns and trends in platform dynamics.

ER is a social media metric that measures how

much of a given page's audience actively engages

with the page's content in relation to the reach or size

of the audience. It includes likes, comments, shares,

saves and other actions - but excludes views. High ER

reflects audience interest and builds trust with first-

time visitors to a social profile (Newberry, 2024). The

ER was calculated according to the interactions that

the researcher can access, without using any social

media analysis tools, as follows:

To optimise communication and engagement on

digital platforms, it's important to understand not only

the dynamics and metrics of interaction, but also the

nature and type of content shared (Peruta & Shields,

2017), to understand which types of content generate

the most and least engagement. To do this, in a fourth

stage, all the posts made on the selected pages during

the period of analysis were collected, and in the last

stage, through direct observation of the posts made on

the two platforms during the period of analysis, the

type of content (image, video, text, infographic, etc.),

goal of the content (informative, educational,

promotional, etc.), and engagement indicators (likes,

comments and shares) were recorded for each post. It

is important to clarify that the accessibility of these

platforms has not been assessed.

The data collected was subjected to a manually

conducted qualitative content analysis. To do this,

each post was classified according to its content type

(content format, which can be image, video, link or

event) and goal (purpose of the content), according to

the categories defined in the table below (Castillero-

Ostio et al., 2024; Rossi et al., 2024) (Table 1).

The definition of these categories was inspired by

previous studies on content analysis in social media

(Castillero-Ostio et al., 2024; Rossi et al., 2024),

which identify different publication purposes in

digital communication and content analysis contexts.

These studies identified different publication

purposes used by organisations and communities to

inform, engage and mobilise the public, serving as a

reference for the initial development of the

categories. It was noted that the purposes found in

these studies broadly reflected the main publication

intentions identified. Based on this, the description of

each category was adjusted and adapted to the context

Social Media as a Tool for Promoting Inclusion: An Analysis of the Facebook and Instagram Pages of Inclusive Spaces

143

of the present study, resulting in the list of categories

presented (Table 1).

Table 1: Content goals and description.

Content goal Description

Informative

Content that educates or provides

useful information.

Promotional

Advertisements for products, services

or events

romoted b

the centre.

Educative

Materials that teach or guide the

ublic on a topic.

Inspirational

Motivational or thought-provoking

messa

es.

Testimonial Customer/user testimonials or stories.

Cultural

Content that promotes local or global

culture.

Record

Content whose goal is to show or

record an event or activity that has

taken place, highlighting what has

happened, without a promotional

focus.

Solidary

Content with the goal of mobilising

the

ublic for social solidarit

actions

After this classification, interaction metrics were

recorded for each type of content and goal, including

the number of likes, number of comments and, in the

case of Facebook, the number of shares, a metric that

cannot be ascertained on Instagram, as well as the

total number of interactions. These interactions were

compared, providing an insight into which

combinations and types of content generated the most

or least interactions on the platforms analyzed, and

making it possible to identify patterns and trends in

the content published.

The study followed ethical principles, ensuring

that only publicly available data was used, and that no

personal or sensitive user information was used. The

pages analyzed were treated anonymously.

4 RESULTS

4.1 Presence of Inclusive Spaces on

Facebook and Instagram

A criterion was established that each space must have

recorded activity on the platforms in the last 12

months to be considered present on social media.

Therefore, all Facebook and Instagram pages that

have not recorded any activity in the last year were

considered inactive.

The results of analysing the presence of the 16 IS

on Facebook and Instagram indicate a significant

digital presence on both platforms, where 94% of the

spaces (15 out of 16) are active on Facebook and 56%

(9 out of 19) on Instagram and have registered activity

in the last year (between April 2023 and April 2024).

44% (7 out of 16) of IS do not use Instagram and 56%

(7 out of 16) of spaces are active on both platforms.

Table 2 shows the results of each IS social media

presence.

Table 2: Presence of the IS analysed on the social media

Facebook and Instagram.

IE Faceboo

Instagram

A Active Active

B Active Inactive

C Active Active

D Active Active

E Active Active

F Active Active

G Active Active

H Active Inactive

I Active Inactive

J Active Active

Active Active

L Active Inactive

M Inactive Inactive

N Active Active

O Active Inactive

P Active Inactive

4.2 Metrics for the Reach and

Interaction of Inclusive Spaces

4.2.1 Reach Metrics

On Facebook, the number of followers varies widely,

with figures ranging from 38 followers to 159,000

followers. Of note is Space D with the largest

follower base (159,000 followers), followed by J

(60,000 followers) and Space C (13,000 followers).

In contrast, some of the pages analysed have a smaller

number of followers. Examples are Space N (38

followers), Space O (454 followers), and Space L

(835 followers). On this platform, there is a

concentration of spaces with between 1,000 and 7,000

followers, suggesting that most have a moderate

reach.

On Instagram, the number of followers ranges

from 271 to 12,100, while the total number of posts

ranges from 56 to 2,419. Space D also leads on this

platform, with 12,100 followers and 1,042 posts,

followed by Space J, with 9,119 followers and the

highest number of posts (2,419 posts), and Space E

with 2799 followers and 621 posts. With the fewest

followers and activity are Space G (271 followers and

168 posts) and Space A (760 followers and 56 posts).

The spaces with 0 followers are those that are not

present on the platforms.

ICT4AWE 2025 - 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health

144

The graphs below show the distribution of

inclusive spaces on Facebook (Figure 1) and

Instagram (Figure 2), based on the number of

followers.

Image 1: Distribution of Inclusive Spaces on Facebook.

Image 2: Distribution of Inclusive Spaces on Instagram.

It is possible to observe that, on Instagram, spaces

with a higher number of posts tend to have a higher

number of posts.

4.2.2 Interaction Metrics

Regarding Facebook interaction metrics, it can be

seen in Tables 3 and 4 that 4 of the spaces present on

this platform did not publish or obtain any

interactions on Facebook during the period analysed.

The remaining pages (A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, N)

received likes, comments and shares, with Space J

standing out as having a significantly higher number

of likes on its posts than any other page (1634 likes

on 14 publications). It also has the highest number of

total interactions (sum of likes + comments + shares)

and the highest number of likes per post. Space C has

the highest number of comments (73 comments on 21

publications - 3.5 comments per post), and D the

highest number of shares per post (239 shares on 26

publications - an average of 9 shares per post). Apart

from the pages that didn't register any activity during

the period analysed, Space B's page received the

fewest likes and comments (along with Space I) (23

likes and 0 comments on 2 posts), and Space N

received the fewest shares (4 shares on 7 posts).

Also on Facebook, the number of posts in the

period analysed varies between 2 and 33 posts, with

Space G and F standing out as having a significant

number of posts (33 and 32 posts) and higher

publication frequencies. Space B has the lowest

number of posts (2) and, consequently, the lowest

frequency of publication.

It is also possible to observe that the pages with

the highest number of posts are not the ones with the

highest number of interactions, which suggests that

the number of posts does not necessarily guarantee

greater engagement. In fact, the highest number of

interactions was achieved by a space with a

publication frequency of 0.47 posts per day (Space J).

In relation to the ERs, the highest engagement rate

is that of Space N, which is completely

disproportionate to the ERs of the pages of the other

spaces, none of which is higher than 1%. This figure

may be influenced by the small size of the community

and shows that the small follower base of this page is

highly engaged. After this page, the pages in spaces

B and K have the highest ER. On the other hand, the

lowest ER corresponds to space D, one of the pages

with the highest number of posts and interactions,

which indicates that although there are a significant

number of likes, comments and shares, these

interactions are low in relation to the number of

followers.

The tables below summarise the results relating to

the number of posts, total number of likes, comments

and shares, and total interactions (Table 3), and the

average number of likes, comments and shares per

post, and the engagement rate on Facebook (Table 4).

Table 3: Facebook interaction metrics during the analysis

period (number of posts, total likes, comments, shares and

total interactions).

Number

of posts

Total

likes

Total

comments

Total

interactions

A 6 184 1 10 195

B 2 23 0 5 28

C 21 775 73 80 928

D 26 848 26 239 1113

E0 0 0 0 0

F 32 771 42 163 976

G 33 404 35 50 489

H0 0 0 0 0

I 25 73 0 34 107

J 14 1634 12 102 1748

968 1 8 77

L0 0 0 0 0

M- - - - -

N 7 145 4 4 153

O0 0 0 0 0

P0 0 0 0 0

Social Media as a Tool for Promoting Inclusion: An Analysis of the Facebook and Instagram Pages of Inclusive Spaces

145

Table 4: Facebook interaction metrics during the analysis

period (average likes, comments and shares per post, and

engagement rate).

Average

likes per

pos

Average

comments

per pos

Average

per pos

Engagement

rate

A 30,6 0,16 1,6 0,30%

B 11 0 2,5 0,70%

C 36,9 3,5 3,8 0,30%

D 32,6 1 9,2 0,02%

E 0 0 0 0%

F 24,1 1,3 5,1 0,40%

G 12,2 1,1 1,5 0,20%

H 0 0 0 0%

I 2,9 0 1,4 0,10%

J 116,7 0,9 7,3 0,20%

7,6 0,1 0,8 0,50%

L 0 0 0 0%

M - - - -

N 20,7 0,6 0,6 57,50%

O 0 0 0 0%

P 0 0 0 0%

Regarding Instagram, it can be observed in Tables

4 and 5 that one of the spaces on this platform did not

receive any interactions during the period analysed,

as no content was published during that time. The

remaining pages (C, D, E, F, G, J and K) received

several likes and comments (Table 4). The Space D

page is the one with the most public interaction and

the highest number of likes and comments (2677 likes

and 98 comments on 33 posts), followed by the Space

J page, with a large number of likes (2470 likes on 14

posts).Except for the pages that didn't register any

activity during the analysis period, the page that

received the fewest likes and comments was Space K

(210 likes and 2 comments on 7 posts).

The number of posts in the period analysed varies

between 7 and 33 posts, with Space D standing out,

as on Facebook, with 33 posts (more than 1 per day),

and Space F with 30 posts (1 per day).

On the other hand, Space O has no posts at all, and

Space K has the fewest posts (7) and, consequently,

the lowest frequency of publication.

Unlike Facebook, on Instagram the page with the

highest number of posts is also the page with the

highest number of interactions (Space D). However,

the other pages with a high posting frequency don't

have the highest interaction numbers. In fact, the

second highest number of interactions was obtained

by a space with a publication frequency of 0.47 posts

per day (Space J).

Regarding ER on Instagram, the Space K page has

the highest ER of 4% with an average of 30 likes per

post. This shows that the content is engaging, despite

the smaller number of posts (7). In addition, Space C's

page also has a high ER of 3.60 per cent, with an

average of 28.4 likes per post, showing a good

amount of interaction for the size of its audience.

The tables below summarise the results relating to

the number of posts, total number of likes and

comments, and total interactions (Table 5), and the

average number of likes and comments per post, and

the engagement rate on Facebook (Table 6).

Table 5: Instagram interaction metrics during the analysis

period (number of posts, total likes and comments, and total

interactions)

Number of

posts

Total

likes

Total

comments

Total

interactions

A- - - -

B- - - -

C 14 398 7 405

D 33 2677 98 2775

E 9 302 18 320

F 30 653 18 671

G 26 443 13 482

H- - - -

I- - - -

J 14 2470 6 2476

7 210 2 212

L- - - -

M- - - -

N0 0 0 0

O- - - -

P- - - -

Table 6: Instagram interaction metrics during the analysis

period (average likes and comments per post, and

engagement rate).

Average

likes per pos

Average comments

per pos

Engagement

rate

A- - -

B- - -

C 28,4 0,5 3,60%

D 81,1 2,97 0,70%

E 33,5 2 1,30%

F 21,8 0,6 1,70%

G 17,04 0,5 1,78%

H- - -

I- - -

J 177 0,43 1,90%

30 029 4%

L- - -

M- - -

N 0 0 0%

O- - -

P- - -

All IS that use Instagram also use Facebook, and

there is only one space that only uses Instagram (E).

Overall, although Instagram is the platform with

the least presence, it generates more interaction from

the public (a total of 7210 interactions in the period

analysed) than Facebook (a total of 5814 interactions

ICT4AWE 2025 - 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health

146

in the period analysed), and the ERs are also higher,

highlighting the effectiveness of this platform.

In terms of publications, most spaces have more

content on Facebook (A, B, C, F, G, I, K, and N).

Only for two Spaces (D and E) is Instagram the

platform with more publications, and in Space J, the

number of publications on Facebook is equal to that

on Instagram.

4.3 Content Shared on the Pages of

Inclusive Spaces

This section presents the results of the content

analysis and is divided into 3 sub-sections: type of

content, goals of the content, and finally the overall

results of the content analysis.

It is important to note that the content of one of

the IS (J) was not included in the analysis due to its

lack of compliance with the established social and

digital inclusion criteria. Although this institution

operates as a Social Subsidiary and was created by a

Main Structure (Parent Company), both share the

same social media page. However, the content

published by the Main Structure does not promote

social and digital inclusion and therefore does not

meet the selection criteria defined for this

investigation. Therefore, the entire analysis of the

content published on this institution's Instagram and

Facebook pages was disregarded.

4.3.1 Type of Content

Throughout this study, four main types of content

were identified on the social media of the IS studied,

namely: image, video, links and events. Regarding

the latter two types of content: links are only accepted

on Instagram stories, which were not analysed in this

study; and events are a feature that does not exist on

Instagram.

On Facebook, images have the highest volume of

posts (139) and interactions (3699), representing

higher total and average engagement. Videos,

despite fewer posts (13), have a good level of average

engagement (12.85 interactions per post). Links and

events are not as common and consequently have

fewer interactions (Table 7).

6 of the 10 spaces that posted on Facebook in the

period analysed published videos; 10 published

images; 2 published links; and 1 published an event.

Table 7: Metrics related to the type of content published by

EI on Facebook.

Type of

content

Total

posts

Total

interactions

Average

interactions

er post

Image 139 3699 20,9

Video 13 331 12,85

Lin

8 64 10,4

Event 1 14 14

On Instagram, images also dominate in terms of

number of posts (103) and total interactions (4044).

Unlike Facebook, videos have a higher average

engagement on Instagram (43 interactions per

post), confirming Instagram's receptiveness to videos

(Table 8).

This platform has less content published

compared to Facebook, but it has more total

engagement (4044 interactions on images and 857 on

videos) and average engagement (29.3 interactions

per image and 43.15 interactions per video).

However, in terms of audiovisual content, it was on

Instagram that IS published the most videos (16)

during the period analysed, and with the most

interactions (Table 8).

The predominant type of content on both

Facebook and Instagram is images.

4 of the 7 spaces that published on Instagram in

the period analysed published videos and 7 published

images.

Table 8: Metrics related to the type of content published by

EI on Instagram.

Type of

content

Total

posts

Total

interactions

Average

interactions

er post

Image 103 4044 29,3

Video 16 857 43,15

Lin

00 0

Event 0 0 0

4.3.2 Content Goal

To present the main results of the content analysis of

the IS Facebook and Instagram pages, eight

categories of goals were defined that reflect the core

objectives of the content published on the IS

Facebook and Instagram pages (Table 1). These

categories range from promoting cultural events to

engaging in solidarity and disseminating relevant

information. Based on them, it was possible to

classify the predominant communicative intent of the

posts published during the period analysed, allowing

patterns and trends in IS use of social media to be

identified.

Social Media as a Tool for Promoting Inclusion: An Analysis of the Facebook and Instagram Pages of Inclusive Spaces

147

Regarding the content goals, the results show that:

 Cultural posts had the goal of promoting or

celebrating historical or social events, such as, in

most posts of this type, the celebration of the

50th anniversary of the 25 April Revolution - an

event in Portugal's history resulting from a

political and social movement (Barreto &

Serrão, 2000).

 Educational posts had the goal of sharing

knowledge and providing guidance to the public

on specific topics, namely, as was done by one

of the IS, explaining the importance of

occupational therapy in improving the quality of

life of PwD.

 Informative posts provided useful data or

information, such as opening hours, instructions

on registering for courses or activities, global

data on access to health and information and

statistics on certain diseases.

 The inspirational post was published on World

Autism Awareness Day, with the goal of

emphasising inclusion and the rights of people

with autism, with a motivational and reflective

message.

 The goal of the promotional posts was to

disseminate events, services or initiatives,

namely: fundraising activities for IS; workshops

on useful information for the population; themed

meetings to aggregate and share information

relevant to PwD; talks; congresses; sports

activities; information sessions on entering the

labour market; courses on quality of life, literacy

for PwD; universal design workshops;

employment support programmes, etc.

 The purpose of registration posts is to document

activities carried out, namely participation in

conferences, workshops, events, and other

activities in various areas of IS activity.

 Solidarity posts were intended to mobilise the

public for support actions or highlight solidarity

initiatives carried out, such as the delivery of

hampers to needy families by one of the IS;

solidarity actions to collect equipment or

monetary funds for the IS; encouraging

donations, etc.

 Testimonial posts presented real stories or

testimonies from people impacted by projects or

actions. An example of this category is an

account by a beneficiary of an employment

support programme, who shared how the

initiative helped him enter the job market. In

addition to this, other testimonial content has

also been published that also has a charitable

nature, and which are testimonies from people

with disabilities about the lack of freedom they

still have in the country where they live,

particularly in terms of access to the labour

market, culture or public services. These have a

charitable nature because they also call for

donations, with the aim of raising funds to fill

these gaps.

In terms of content, the most shared type of

content on IS social media was content with the goal

of registration (59 posts on Facebook and 46 on

Instagram) (Tables 9 and 10). In addition to this,

promotional content is also widely published on the

two platforms analysed, with Facebook standing out

(41 posts), while registration activity is lower on

Instagram (25 posts). Another content that stands out

in terms of publications is informative content (30

posts on Facebook and Instagram).

In terms of interactions, on Facebook, the content

that generated the most total interactions was

registration content (1,423 total interactions and an

average of 202.5 interactions per post) - with the

highest total engagement, followed by solidarity

content (961 interactions), which also has the highest

average number of interactions per post (244

interactions per post), promotional content (813

interactions and an average of 108 interactions per

post), and informative content (669 total

interactions), which also has a high average number

of interactions per post (134.5).

Promotional content has more interactions (and

also has more posts) - which facilitates this

engagement - so it has higher total engagement on

Facebook. However, considering that the highest

average number of interactions per post is for

solidarity posts, these are the ones with the highest

average engagement on Facebook, because in fewer

posts they have more interactions. The content with

the lowest engagement is inspirational (7

interactions) (Table 9).

Table 9: Metrics related to the goals of the content

published by IS on Facebook.

Content goal

Total

posts

Total

interactions

Average

interaction

ost

Cultural 1 20 20

Educational 6 81 35,3

Informative 30 669 134,5

Inspirational 1 7 7

Promotional 41 813 108

Recor

59 1423 202,5

Solidar

18 961 244

Testimonial 1 20 20

Testimonial

and solidar

4 84 21

ICT4AWE 2025 - 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health

148

In terms of interactions on Instagram, the content

that generated the most total interactions and the

highest average number of interactions per post was

solidarity content (1,747 total interactions and an

average of 347.6 interactions per post), followed by

registration content (1,360 total interactions and an

average of 277 interactions per post), informative

content (635 interactions and an average of 249.4

interactions per post), and promotional content (603

total interactions and 102.1 interactions per post). It

can be concluded, then, that registration posts have a

higher total engagement on Instagram and

solidarity posts have a higher average engagement

on Instagram (they have more interactions for fewer

posts), because in fewer posts they have more

interactions. The content with the lowest engagement

is inspirational (23 interactions) (Table 10).

The predominant content goal on both Facebook

and Instagram is to record.

Table 10: Metrics related to the goals of the content

published by IS on Instagram.

Content goal

Total

posts

Total

interactions

Average

interaction

ost

Cultural 2 84 84

Educational 6 175 92,7

Informative 30 635 249,4

Inspirational 1 23 23

Promotional 25 603 102,1

Recor

46 1360 277

Solidar

14 1747 347,6

Testimonial 1 50 50

Testimonial

and solidar

4 224 56

4.3.3 Global Analysis

Table 11 shows the results for the metrics for each

type and goal of content on Facebook.

On Facebook, images with the goal of

registering are the ones with the highest number

of posts and the highest number of interactions,

achieving a higher total engagement. However, the

highest average engagement belongs to solidarity

images, as they have the highest number of

interactions for the fewest posts (Table 11).

The type of content most published on Facebook

is images with the goal of registration, published by 7

IS, followed by promotional images (published by 6

IS) and informative images (published by 6 IS).

Table 11: Metrics related to the type and goals of the

content published by IS on Facebook.

Type of

content

Content goal

Total

posts

Total

interact

ions

Average

interactions

per pos

Even

Solidary 1 14 14

Image Cultural 1 20 20

Image Educational 6 81 35,3

Image Informative 24 630 117,9

Image Inspirational 1 7 7

Image Promotional 37 653 68

Image Record 56 1384 163,5

Image Solidary 13 874 176,5

Image Testimonial 1 20 20

Lin

Informative 6 39 16,6

Lin

Record 2 25 25

Video Cultural 0 0 0

Video Informative 0 0 0

Video Promotional 4 160 40

Video Record 1 14 14

Video Solidary 4 73 53,5

Video

Testimonial

and solidary

4 84 21

Table 12 shows the results of the metrics for each

type and goal of content on Instagram.

On Instagram, images with the goal of recording

are the ones with the highest number of posts.

However, the highest average and total

engagement belongs to charity images, which have

the highest number of interactions and the highest

average number of interactions per post (Table 12).

The type of content most published on Instagram,

as on Facebook, are images with the goal of

recording, published by 5 IS, followed by

promotional images (published by 5 IS) and

informative images (published by 5 IS).

Table 12: Metrics related to the type and goals of the

content published by IS on Instagram.

Type of

content

Content goal

Total

posts

Total

interact

ions

Average

interactions

per pos

Even

Solidary 0 0 0

Image Cultural 1 10 10

Image Educational 6 175 92

Image Informative 16 400 131

Image Inspirational 1 23 23

Image Promotional 25 603 102

Image Record 42 1174 184

Image Solidary 11 1609 256

Image Testimonial 1 50 50

Lin

Informative 0 0 0

Lin

Record 0 0 0

Video Cultural 1 74 74

Video Informative 4 235 117

Video Promotional 0 0 0

Video Record 4 186 93

Video Solidary 3 138 91

Video

Testimonial

and solidary

4 224 56

Social Media as a Tool for Promoting Inclusion: An Analysis of the Facebook and Instagram Pages of Inclusive Spaces

149

Analysing the data reveals that most spaces adopt

a uniform publishing strategy, replicating the same

posts on both Facebook and Instagram. However,

there are functional differences that influence this

approach. For example, Instagram doesn't allow

direct sharing of links (in posts) or other users' posts

– features that are available on Facebook. On the

other hand, Instagram can feature more posts than

Facebook in some cases, due to the possibility of

publishing in partnership with other entities -

collaborative actions that Facebook does not directly

support. These limitations explain specific variations

in the content published on each platform.

5 DISCUSSION

The goal of this study was to understand how IS

Facebook and Instagram pages use different content

formats to promote their spaces and engage their

target audience.

The results show that most IS predominantly use

visual formats, especially images, to disseminate their

initiatives, record events and activities and promote

services and activities to support PwD, carers or other

stakeholders. Although videos are also published,

their frequency is considerably lower than that of

images. This trend partially contradicts more recent

literature, which emphasises the growing interest and

effectiveness of videos as a way of capturing the

public's attention and promoting deeper engagement,

arguing that in today's social media context, videos

are increasingly appealing and used to attract and

retain people's attention because of their potential to

convey complex messages in a dynamic way (Karol

& Norman, 2019; Zhou & Wang, 2014). In particular,

platforms like Instagram have been betting on short

video features, achieving even better engagement

than traditional pictures (Liang & Wolfe, 2022).

Nevertheless, this predominance of imagery

corroborates the literature that points to the

importance of visual appeal in capturing the public's

attention (Lazard & Mackert, 2015). In addition, the

preference for static images may be related to

practical factors such as the speed of creation, editing

and publication, as well as the possibility of

producing content with reduced resources, something

that is particularly important in many IS due to

limited budgets or teams.

Although there is potential for engagement with

videos, images remain the preferred resource for

communicating and illustrating IS services.

In general, it was found that the publications focus

on recording/documenting activities, events, etc.;

disseminating useful resources and services for the

disabled and non-disabled population; mobilising the

public for support actions or highlighting solidarity

initiatives carried out; and providing information for

the public. These strategies are in line with Kaplan

and Haenlein's (2010) argument that social media

function as participatory platforms that allow

organisations to strengthen ties with their audiences

through sharing focused on values and experiences

(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

It was also found that charitable content tends to

generate a higher average number of interactions

(comments, likes and shares) per post, both on

Facebook and Instagram, and record posts also

achieve significant volumes of interactions on both

platforms, with more expression on Facebook. These

findings confirm previous studies which argue that

the emotional and relational dimension is decisive in

stimulating participation and interaction among

followers (Tuccini & Guidi, 2021), suggesting that

publications that mobilise empathy, solidarity and

personal identification tend to receive more feedback.

The results identified two main differences in

communication strategies between Facebook and

Instagram pages: i) the functionalities available on the

different platforms (for example, Instagram does not

allow direct sharing of links in posts, nor of posts by

other users. On the other hand, Instagram has the

possibility of creating publications in partnership

with other entities - an action that Facebook does not

directly support), which explain occasional variations

in the content published on each platform; and ii) the

difference between reach and engagement (although

the Facebook of some IS has a higher number of

followers, Instagram showed a higher average of

interactions.

These findings validate the notion that

communication strategies should be adapted to each

platform in order to optimise engagement and the

disseminating of IS goals (Nicolae, Rus & Tasente,

2023; Rüfenacht et al., 2021).

The engagement indicators varied depending on

the content, but also on the platform. While Facebook

had a higher total number of followers on some IS,

Instagram generally generated more proportional

interactions. On the other hand, there are IS with

smaller but highly engaged communities, which

suggests that the absolute number of followers is not

the only determining factor for the success of posts

(Peruta & Shields, 2017; Newberry, 2024).

In comparison with the research question, it can

be verified that the Facebook and Instagram pages of

the IS prioritise visual content above all else,

highlighting the use of images to record and

ICT4AWE 2025 - 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health

150

disseminate activities, promote services and raise

public awareness of social and digital inclusion

issues, adapting the format (image, video, text) to the

functionalities of the platforms. However, on both

platforms, solidarity content tends to produce higher

levels of engagement, due to its strong emotional and

relational appeal. These formats and content

contribute to disseminating inclusive practices,

raising awareness and engaging the public, especially

when associated with clear language and accessibility

features.

In this way, Facebook and Instagram pages act as

communication tools, when aligned with inclusive

goals, which can increase the visibility of IS

initiatives and strengthen community involvement in

the cause of digital and social inclusion (Rocha

Lourenço, Oliveira & Tymoshchuk, 2023).

6 CONCLUSIONS

This study concludes that social media can effectively

contribute to promoting social and digital inclusion

by disseminating relevant resources, services and

information to PwD, carers and other interested

parties. However, the lower frequency of videos

reveals an opportunity for improvement, especially

given current trends in audiovisual content

consumption; and the potential of testimonial content,

capable of generating strong emotional identification,

could be exploited more systematically.

This work offers valuable contributions to

understanding the potential of social media in

promoting inclusion, highlighting the importance of

cohesive communication strategies adapted to the

characteristics of the platforms. To deepen the

effectiveness of these strategies, future studies should

include longer periods of analysis, the collection of

internal data (real reach, clicks on links) and

triangulation with other methodologies (interviews or

questionnaires) to capture the perspectives of the

management teams and audiences involved. It is

hoped that the recommendations presented here will

serve as practical guidance for other IS and similar

organisations to better explore the potential of social

media in building more inclusive and participatory

communities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is financially supported by national funds

through FCT – Foundation for Science and

Technology, I.P., under the project

UIDB/05460/2020.

REFERENCES

Barreto, A., & Serrão, J. (Eds.). (2000). Dicionário de

história de Portugal. Vol. 9: Suplemento P/Z / António

Barreto ... (coordenadores) (Vol. 9). Figueirinhas.

BDU (2024). Espaços Inclusivos. BDU.

https://bdu.pt/solucoes/espacos-inclusivos/

Castillero-Ostio, E., Moreno-Cabanillas, A., & Castillo-

Esparcia, A. (2024). Comunicación y think tanks:

Valoración de la interactividad web de los laboratorios

de ideas latinoamericanos. Palabra Clave, 27(3), 1–35.

https://doi.org/10.5294/pacla.2024.27.3.2

Ellison, N. B., & Boyd, D. M. (2013). Sociality Through

Social Network Sites (W. H. Dutton, Ed.; Vol. 1).

Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/

oxfordhb/9780199589074.013.0008

Gatewood, J., Monks, S. L., Singletary, C. R., Vidrascu, E.,

& Moore, J. B. (2020). Social Media in Public Health:

Strategies to Distill, Package, and Disseminate Public

Health Research. Journal of Public Health

Management and Practice, 26(5), 489–492.

https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001096

Hung, L., Hudson, A., Gregorio, M., Jackson, L., Mann, J.,

Horne, N., Berndt, A., Wallsworth, C., Wong, L., &

Phinney, A. (2021). Creating dementia-friendly

communities for social inclusion: A scoping review.

Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 7.

https://doi.org/10.1177/23337214211013596

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world,

unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social

Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Karol, K., & Norman, C. (2019). The rise of, and need for,

video in social media marketing. Journal of Education

Advancement & Marketing, 3(4), 316. https://doi.org/

10.69554/PCKH5100

Katunga, N., Njenga, J., Craffert, L., Audenhove, L. V., &

Marien, I. (2019). Using Social Media To Support

Community Development: A Case Study Of E-

Inclusion Intermediaries In Underprivileged

Communities Of South Africa. 2019 IST-Africa Week

Conference (IST-Africa), 1–10. https://doi.org/

10.23919/ISTAFRICA.2019.8764854

Kočišová, L., & Štarchoň, P. (2023). The role of marketing

metrics in social media: A comprehensive analysis.

Marketing Science & Inspirations, 18(2), 40–49.

https://doi.org/10.46286/msi.2023.18.2.4

Lazard, A. J., & Mackert, M. S. (2015). e-health first

impressions and visual evaluations: Key design

principles for attention and appeal. Communication

Design Quarterly, 3(4), 25–34.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2826972.2826975

Liang, S., & Wolfe, J. (2022). Getting a Feel of Instagram

Reels: The Effects of Posting Format on Online

Social Media as a Tool for Promoting Inclusion: An Analysis of the Facebook and Instagram Pages of Inclusive Spaces

151

Engagement. Journal of Student Research, 11(4).

https://doi.org/10.47611/jsrhs.v11i4.3600

Nicolae (Halep), C.-G., Rus, M., & Tasențe, T. (2023).

Institutional communication models and strategies

adapted to New Media. Ars Aequi, 12, 190–208.

https://doi.org/10.47577/10.1234/arsaequi.12.1.223

Palatna, D. (2019). Inclusive environment: Developing

integrated definition. Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko

National University of Kyiv. Social Work, (5), 20–23.

https://doi.org/10.17721/2616-7786.2019/5-1/4

Peruta, A., & Shields, A. B. (2017). Social media in higher

education: Understanding how colleges and universities

use Facebook. Journal of Marketing for Higher

Education, 27(1), 131–143. https://doi.org/

10.1080/08841241.2016.1212451

Rijal, S., Almaududi Ausat, A. M., & Siminto. (2024). The

Role of Social Media in Enhancing Social Awareness

and Community Participation in Education. Indo-

MathEdu Intellectuals Journal, 5(2), 2385–2398.

https://doi.org/10.54373/imeij.v5i2.1067

Rocha Lourenço, F., Oliveira, R., & Tymoshchuk, O.

(2023). Best-practices for developing effective

communication campaigns to promote assistive

technology resource centres. 3999–4008.

https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2023.1003

Rocha Lourenço, F., Oliveira, R., & Tymoshchuk, O.

(2024). Challenges and gaps in promoting inclusive

spaces: A study based on interviews. In A. Marcus, E.

Rosenzweig, & M. M. Soares (Eds.), Design, User

Experience, and Usability (pp. 116–129). Cham:

Springer Nature Switzerland.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61356-2_8

Rossi, N. A., Benavidez, M., Nuti, S. A., Hajiyev, Y.,

Hughes, C. A., & Pine, H. S. (2024). Viral voices: A

multi-platform analysis of tonsillectomy on social

media. International Journal of Pediatric

Otorhinolaryngology, 176, 111816. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.ijporl.2023.111816

Rüfenacht, S., Woods, T., Agnello, G., Gold, M., Hummer,

P., Land-Zandstra, A., & Sieber, A. (2021).

Communication and Dissemination in Citizen Science.

Em K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R.

Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson, & K.

Wagenknecht (Eds.), The Science of Citizen Science

(pp. 475–494). Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_24

Terry, K., Yang, F., Yao, Q., & Liu, C. (2023). The role of

social media in public health crises caused by infectious

disease: A scoping review. BMJ Global Health, 8(12),

e013515. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-013515

Titisuk, P., Vajarapongse, Y., & Thongwon, L. (2023). The

Impact of Using Social Media on the Mental Health of

Adolescents. International Journal of Current Science

Research and Review, 06(06). https://doi.org/

10.47191/ijcsrr/V6-i6-23

Tuccini, G., & Guidi, G. (2021). Il peso delle emozioni

nell’argomentazione sui social media. Em A. Cattani &

B. Mastroianni (Eds.), Competing, cooperating,

deciding: Towards a model of deliberative debate (1.

ed., pp. 119–127). Firenze University Press.

https://doi.org/10.36253/978-88-5518-329-1.11

World Bank. (2013). Inclusion Matters: The Foundation

for Shared Prosperity. The World Bank.

https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0010-8

Zhou, L., & Wang, T. (2014). Social media: A new vehicle

for city marketing in China. Cities, 37, 27–32.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.11.006

ICT4AWE 2025 - 11th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Ageing Well and e-Health

152