Week 9-Health and Wellbeing Flashcards
What is the history of Health Campaigns?
■ Rogers and Storey (1987) state a campaign “intends to generate specific outcomes or effects (2) in a relatively large number of individuals, (3) usually within a specified period of time, and (4) through
an organized set of communication activities e.g., repeated advertisements’’ (p. 821).
■ Substantial history of health campaigns
■ Early campaigns e.g., 1700’s Reverend Cotton Mather using pamphlets to promote inoculation against smallpox
Rogers and Storey (1987) stages of media health campaigns:
■ 1940s and 1950s many large-scale campaign efforts failed (plan was to repeatedly inform which will eventually change their behaviour)
■ 1960s and 1970s greater campaign success, more understanding of effective campaign design (e.g., we know fear-mongering can make people switch off)
■ 1980s and 1990s more information about campaign success and limitations
What is The Heart Truth and Red Dress Health Campaign? (Successful Campaign)
■ Branding has become more important in health campaigns (e.g., ribbons)
■ Branding increases visibility, raises awareness, and provides a reminder
■ Need to raise awareness of heart disease in women
Formative research to investigate women’s perceptions and barriers to heart disease (and thus to determine if the campaign was needed):
■ 1. Women perceived heart disease as a ‘man’s disease’
■ 2. Women lacked awareness and knowledge of heart disease risk factors
■ 3. Women lacked motivation to change behaviour modification
■ Developed the Red Dress Symbol with the text ‘‘Heart Disease Doesn’t Care What You Wear – It’s the #1 Killer of Women’’
In initial pilot tests participants reported it (Anderson et al., 2013):
1. Would catch my attention
2. Is appealing
3. Makes me stop and think about my own risk for heart disease,
4. Motivates me to want to do more to lower my risk of heart disease
5. Has a message that is ‘‘just right,’’ not too strong or too weak
What did Anderson, Silliman, and Schneider (2013) find about views on the The Heart Truth and Red Dress Campaign?
■ Women (N = 475) completed a survey
■ Greater proportion of participants familiar with the Red Dress symbol identified heart disease as the greatest health problem facing women and the leading cause of death of women
■ They were also more likely to identify causes of heart disease and behaviour that could minimise risk
What are Anti-Drug Campaigns? (Unsuccessful Campaign)
■ Anti-drug campaigns such as the ‘Just Say No’ Regan era campaigns provided little evidence for their efficacy
■ Campaigns have often used fear and moralistic principles to deter drug use i.e., it’s bad without explaining the health consequences or uses extreme consequences
-Didn’t really research in advance why people have drugs and barriers to stopping this
■ Campaigns have backfired e.g., ‘heroin chic
Anti-Drug Campaigns: Meth
■ In the 2000’s, the anti-methamphetamine media campaigns, ‘Faces of Meth’ (FOM) and ‘The Meth Project’ (TMP) used images to produce fear, shock, and disgust and deter drug use (wasn’t designed by a health or media psychologist but a software specialist: CHECK THIS)
■ FOM – paired mug shots
■ TMP – consequences of use
■ Have encouraged a specific image of methamphetamine users in the general public
■ The campaigns have been praised by police and politicians
■ FOM and TMP - shock, fear, and disgust are used and targeted at those who do not yet use meth
■ They may demonise and stigmatise users, shaping general perceptions rather than actively reflecting the situation
What did Marsh et al. (2017) find about the impact of Anti-Drug Campaigns: Meth
■ Investigated how current and former methamphetamine users and manufacturers perceived the two
campaigns in how effective and accurate they were (each had been a chronic user and manufactured).
■ None said the campaigns had impacted on their decision to use or continue to use or stop using (so they didn’t question their use).
■ Several said the depictions were humorous and entertaining.
■ People reported that they did not identify with the unclean user with dramatic
physical changes (didn’t feel they were credible).
■ They also reported that their own addictions were too powerful to be overcome by the adverts (so telling people to stop isn’t enough but rather campaigns should look at the risk factors associated with substance use)
What did Boles et al. (2014) find about Campaign Effectiveness and Behaviour
Change?
■ Assessed the effectiveness of the ‘It Starts Here’ campaign which featured paid and unpaid media on the web, television, billboards, and transit (so was widely spread).
■ Targeted at mothers under the age of 45.
■ Nearly 70% of people were aware of at least one campaign element.
■ Nearly 80% of people who were aware of the media campaign intended to reduce the amount of soda or sugary drinks they provided to children (so effective as it’s changing people’s knowledge and intentions)
■ HOWEVER, there was no change in self-reported consumption (always important when investigating campaign effectiveness to investigate behavioural change).
What did Richardson et al. (2014) find about the effectiveness of tone in health campaigns?
■ Categorised UK government-funded televised tobacco control campaigns from April 2005 – April 2010 as either positive (happiness, satisfaction, hope) or negative (fear, guilt, disgust) and looked at its effect.
■ Positive messages were most effective at increasing quitline calls, whereas those with negative emotive content also impacted on call rates – but only at higher levels of exposure (there’s a cost-implication of how much you can get this advert out to people)
-You want the message to be strong enough that it is taken seriously, but not to the point it is fear mongering
What did Snyder and Hamilton (2002) find when conducting an evaluation and meta-analysis on health campaign effectivness?
■ Meta-analysis of 48 health campaigns that were conducted in the United States
■ Overall, mean effect size of r = .09 (average campaign changed the behaviour of about 8% of the population in the expected, positive direction)
■ Success varied e.g., seatbelt, oral health, and alcohol campaigns the most successful (i.e., change which is usually easy to change behaviourally)
■ Campaigns focused on adoption of new behaviour more successful than prevention or cessation (e.g., walk for 15 minutes after tea rather than to stop smoking after tea)
■ Campaigns with greater reach or exposure more successful (doesn’t mean it will necessarily be successful but rather acts as a reminder)
What did Derzon and Lipsey (2002) find when conducting an evaluation and meta-analysis on health campaigns?
■ Derzon and Lipsey (2002) conducted a meta-analysis of 72 campaigns designed to prevent or reduce youth substance use
■ Campaigns using radio, video, and television were more effective than those utilizing print media (adolescents don’t typically read newspapers nowadays)
■ Campaigns focused on alcohol use were more successful than campaigns focused on illicit drugs or tobacco
■ Campaigns targeted at youth had little success, those directed toward parents and retailers had more success (as they typically regulate and monitor their child’s behaviour e.g., punishment for drinking underaged).
What are the Principles of Effective Campaign Design? (Noar, 2006)
Success is more likely when campaign designers…
■ Conduct formative research with the target audience to clearly understand the behaviour and the problem area (i.e., initial research in advance - e.g., why do people adopt these behaviours? is it habitual?)
■ Use Health theory as a conceptual foundation to the campaign; theory will suggest important determinants around which to develop messages
■ Segment audience into meaningful subgroups based on important characteristics such as demographic
variables, risk, personality etc., (i.e., target particular groups)
■ Use a message design approach that is targeted to and likely to be effective with the audience segment (i.e., target)
■ Place messages in channels widely viewed by the target audience; strategically position campaign messages within the selected channels (e.g., younger audience = social media campaign)
■ Conduct process evaluation including monitoring and collecting of data on implementation of campaign activities (i.e., how well it is implemented)
■ Use a sensitive outcome evaluation design that reduces threats to internal validity and permits firm causal conclusions about the campaign’s influence on attitudes and behaviours to be made (and to determine whether the campaign wants to change attitudes or behaviour)
Campaign Quality and Effective Communication: World Health Organisation: What are the 6 Principles for Effective Communication?
- Accessible to decisions-makers
- Actionable by decisions-makers
- Credible and trusted as perceived by decisions-makers
- Relevant to decisions-makers
- Timely to enable decision-making
- Understandable to decision-makers
True or False: Health campaign information is easily accessible
True!
What did Sharma et al. (2017) find about Awareness, Scares, and Misinformation?
■ Searched Facebook for one week using the terms Zika and virus.
■ Posts were classified as either relevant information / news or misleading information based on the quality of scientific information, emphasis on prevention, and citation of credible sources.
■ Misleading posts were far more popular than posts dispersing accurate, relevant public health information about the disease.
■ The most useful post was a World Health Organization press release, which had viewership of 43,000 views with 964 shares.
■ The most popular misleading post was a video called ’10 reasons why Zika virus fear is a fraudulent medical hoax’. It had more than 530,000 views, 19,600 combined shares and 600 supportive comments.
What is Awareness, Scares, and Misinformation?
■ In February 2013 a retired professor of medicine published a book arguing that cholesterol is not linked to cardiovascular disease and denying the benefits of statins for cardiovascular prevention.
■ The book received extensive media coverage and public discussion.
■ Rates of statin discontinuation (both overall and in each cardiovascular risk group) were greater in 2013 after the media event than in previous years (Bezin et al., 2017) therefore the impact of this is very harmful