Showing posts with label celebrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label celebrity. Show all posts

0
1 is 2 Many: Can a Celebrity PSA Help Men to Stop Sexual Assault?


Last week The White House released, “Not Alone”, the first report of a task force on protecting students from sexual assault. To accompany the report, they also produced a public service announcement featuring several well-known celebrity men: Dule Hill, Benicio Del Toro, Seth Meyers, Daniel Craig, and Steve Carell.  Vice President Biden and President Obama appear in the PSA as well.

There were a lot of good things about the video.  In 60 seconds, it answered these key questions:

  • What is the problem? Sexual assault.
  • Where is it happening? Everywhere- on college campuses, at bars, at parties, even in high schools.
  • Who are the victims/survivors? Our sisters, our daughters, our wives, our friends.
  • Where can I find more information? http://www.whitehouse.gov/1is2many 
  • How can I help? Intervene.

The PSA encouraged viewers to intervene if they find themselves as a bystander. This is important because bystander interventions are promising, evidence-based strategies for preventing sexual assault.
The celebrities outline several key actions that bystanders can take to help the victims/survivors and combat stigma of sexual assault:

  • VP Biden: “If I saw it happening, I was taught you have to do something about it”.
  • Benicio Del Toro: “If I saw it happening, I speak up”.
  • Daniel Craig: “If I saw it happening, I’d never blame her, I’d help her”.

While I liked the PSA for all the reasons above…there were also a few things I found interesting and would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the video development:

  • Celebrity selection: They did a nice job recruiting some diversity in terms of the men’s racial/ethnic backgrounds and their fans/audiences. Meyers and Carell are primarily comedians, Del Toro and Craig have starred in more drama/action movies, and Hill has done both (I’m a huge fan of his from both “West Wing” and “Psych”). The PSA did not list their names to identify them, so I did wonder- “Would every viewer recognize all these actors?- How does that affect the video’s impact?” I also wondered about Del Toro and Craig’s inclusion because they have starred in some incredibly violent movies (e.g., “Traffic” and the James Bond series, respectively). Of course this doesn’t mean they are violent in real life, but how do these movies contribute to violence being accepted in our society?
  • The audience: While we can assume that the intended PSA audience is men (based on language in the “Not Alone” report, their recruiting of all male speakers and their description of victims/survivors- “our sisters, our daughters, etc.”), they never actually say they are speaking to men. They say things like, “we have to stop it”; “we need your help”. Since the intervention strategies can be applicable to anyone regardless of gender, I wonder if they purposely did not use the word “men” to engage a broader audience? 
  • Male victims/survivors: Although the website and report note that men comprise a small number of victims and are no less important, they do not make an appearance in the PSA. This huge national initiative has an opportunity to be inclusive and I worry this exclusion could further stigmatize male victims.

What do you think?

  • Do you think the celebrity PSA can help stop sexual assault? Why or why not?
  • Do you think the video producers clearly defined and spoke to their audience? Why or why not?
  • If you read the “Not Alone” report: what do you think about the initial action steps (e.g., launching a sexual assault climate survey for campuses)? Will these steps lead to effective prevention and response?


0
#YourMomCares: But Is That Enough To Get You Enrolled For Health Insurance?

This week I saved a tweet that read "Celebrity mothers encourage young people to #getcovered."  I thought "celebrity mothers" would be familiar faces- celebrities that have children (e.g., Jennifer Garner, Reese Witherspoon).  So I was a little surprised when I clicked on the video and didn't recognize the faces.  It turns out that the video features mothers of celebrities- specifically the mothers of Jonah Hill, Adam Levine, Alicia Keys, and Jennifer Lopez.  I started out a bit skeptical, feeling like the "celebrity mothers" terms used to market the video could be misleading.

However after viewing the video several times, I think it has some positive characteristics to support the public health efforts to enroll people in a health insurance plan:

(1) Clear Audience: This video is targeted towards any "kid" over 18 years old.  Alicia Keys' mom says, "There is nothing worse for a mom than feeling that her child is not protected- no matter how old they are."

(2) Clear Focus on Qualities that Audience Members Value: No one wants to worry their parents or make them upset.  And certainly no one wants their parents to nag them over and over about something.  We value making our parents proud and happy.  Jonah Hill's mom says, "Taking care of yourself, so your mothers can sleep and have a nice life after all they've done for you, is not too much to ask in my opinion. [If you enroll] We will be so happy and so grateful and we wouldn't ask you to friend us on social media!"

(3) Humor/Engagement:  As a viewer, I could immediately relate to these moms.  They reminded me of people in my family!  They were funny, they told silly anecdotes about their celebrity kids (e.g., Jonah Hill once flooded the elementary school).  Their concern about the safety of their children made you immediately think of your own parents and how much they worry about you when you are sick, hurt, or unprotected.  These moms did a great job of engaging the audience in a short period of time.

(4) Clear Call to Action:  To me, this is the #1 most important quality in a public health video (and usually my #1 critique).  In this video, it was clear what they wanted the viewer to do: get covered, get enrolled for health insurance, and the resource to do so (Healthcare.gov) was stated both verbally and visually.  First Lady Michelle Obama tells viewers "Go to Healthcare.gov and enroll today."  The final screen includes the website, social media hashtag for more information/discussion (#YourMomCares), and the enrollment deadline (March 31st).  The viewer has all the key information needed to take action.

That said- I had a few other observations regarding the video and possible improvements:

(1) Does disabling the comment section on the YouTube video discourage conversation about the video and/or the #GetCovered initiative?  Of course the comment section is not always productive (e.g., spammers, abusive comments, etc)- but I wonder about the message sent by a disabled comment section?

(2) Is the video too long or does it wait too long to hit the topic?  The video runs 1 minute, 51 seconds but health insurance is not mentioned until 50 seconds into the video.  Jonah Hill's mom transitions into the topic by saying, "One thing we should never have to put up with is our kid not having health care."  Could they lose viewers by not getting to the point sooner?  Or was that first 50 seconds necessary to engage viewers?

(3) Does the solo focus on "Moms" vs. parents or other guardians limit the audience- or worse alienate any audience members?  I ask because the ad made me think of the recent #ThankYouMom campaign from Proctor & Gamble that ran during the Olympics.  Families are changing and it is no longer (or was it ever??) just moms taking care of children, or worrying about their children, or focusing on domestic responsibilities.  There was frustration with #ThankYouMom and I think we should keep that in mind when these types of campaigns are designed.

What Do You Think?  
I would love to hear feedback on these questions from my readers!:

0
Top 3 Pop Health Trends in 2013


Wrapping up 2013 has given me a great opportunity to reflect on what I have been writing about over the past year.  Looking back over 35+ posts, here are the trends that caught my eye:

1.  Social Media & Public Health:  The intersection of these two topics continues to intrigue us in the public health field and the application of social media is being explored in everything from preparedness to health education.

Pop Health Favorites From 2013:


2.  Celebrities & Public Health:  This is not a new topic by any means.  For decades, celebrities have been health advocates and/or the topic of discussion for a number of public health issues.  However, I highlight it as a trend in 2013 for two reasons.  (1) With the help of social media, celebrities are weighing in constantly on health issues and current events in real time. These opinions can come quickly and casually through Twitter or Facebook...they no longer speak exclusively through publicists and press releases.  (2) Public health is putting an emphasis on evaluating the impact of celebrities on health issues.  *I hope we see more of this in 2014!!

Pop Health Favorites From 2013:


3.  Crowdsourcing & Public Health:  While I haven't written about it as much as I would like, I have been fascinated by the creative use of crowdsourcing in 2013 that has helped advance public health dialogue.  [For those not familiar with the term, "crowdsourcing" is the act of obtaining ideas, content, etc. by soliciting contributions from a large group of people- like Twitter users!]  Specifically I'd like to acknowledge Slate for utilizing this strategy in the #NotDeadYet story I link to below and more recently in their analysis of gun death data.  I think we in public health can learn a lot from the crowdsourcing strategies that Slate has used to engage readers.

Pop Health Favorite From 2013:


2014:  I anticipate that each of these three topics will continue to grow and appear in many Pop Health posts in 2014.  I hope that we see more and more evaluation studies of social media/celebrities/crowdsourcing and their impact on public health initiatives.  I hope these studies are widely disseminated and made accessible to many of us- even if we lack comprehensive access to peer reviewed journals.  If you see such studies, pass them along!  I am hoping to expand my "Research Notes" posts in the upcoming year and would love to highlight such studies on the blog.

What Do You Think?

  • What other 2013 trends in health communication/social media/public health did you see in your work?
  • What new/expanding trends do you anticipate in 2014?

0
Research Notes: The Angelina Effect

The second most popular Pop Health post of 2013 was "Angelina Jolie's 'Medical Choice' Dominates the Internet" (May 14, 2013).  In that post, I highlighted several public health implications of her op-ed that were being discussed in the media coverage-

(1) Angelina as a "champion" for breast cancer prevention: would her celebrity status help or hurt the cause?
(2) Legal and policy issues with BRCA genetic testing.
(3) Health communication (specifically regarding risk perception).
(4) Reviewing the evidence base for recommending BRCA testing or preventative mastectomies.

When celebrity health stories such as this are publicized, I always keep my eyes peeled to see if any evaluation research or subsequent stories follow.  So I was thrilled to see a peer-reviewed paper released last week that examined the impact of her op-ed.  Authors of "The Angelina Effect: Immediate Reach, Grasp, and Impact of Going Public", conducted a survey which asked participants to report their understanding, reactions, perceptions, and subsequent activities related to the story.  The researchers were especially interested in the public's ability to distinguish the genetic context of Angelina's risk of Breast Cancer from the lower risk that characterizes the vast majority of women who do not carry a BRCA mutation.

Some key findings:

  • Approximately 75% of sampled adults were aware of Angelina's choice to undergo a double mastectomy to reduce her risk of developing Breast Cancer.
  • Of those aware of her story, only 3.4% indicated that they had read her op-ed originally posted in the New York Times.  Instead, most became aware of the story through the national/local news (61.2%) or entertainment news (21.5%).
  • Among respondents that correctly reported Angelina's risk of developing Breast Cancer, fewer than 10% had the information necessary to interpret her risk relative to a woman unaffected by the BRCA gene mutation.
  • The majority of respondents (80%) did not report any health-related actions (e.g., speaking with a doctor or genetic counselor) in the 3 weeks between the op-ed's publication and survey completion.
The authors' conclusions have important implications for those of us that lead health communication efforts- especially those efforts that intersect with the popular media:

"While celebrities can bring heightened awareness to health issues, there is a need for these messages to be accompanied by more purposeful communication efforts to assist the public in understanding and using the complex diagnostic and treatment information that these stories convey."

What Do You Think?
  • Are you surprised that Angelina's op-ed did not result in significant knowledge or behavior change among readers?
  • Should we retire "awareness" as a public health goal since it often does not lead to knowledge or behavior change?
  • Since most respondents were not able to distinguish Angelina's cancer risk from women who do not carry the BRCA gene mutation, could the op-ed do more harm than good?
  • This survey was conducted within 3 weeks of the op-ed publication; are there questions you would like to see asked in a longer-term follow-up survey?

0
Celebrities Aim To Silence The Sounds of Pertussis


This week I surprised myself when I tweeted:

I happened to catch a portion of last week's episode of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.  While not usually a fan of the content/messages on that show, I was thrilled to see that Pertussis (Whooping Cough) was discussed.  Pertussis is a highly contagious disease that can be fatal when contracted by infants.  Research has shown that the majority of infants who get Pertussis get it from a family member.

Since Kim Kardashian would be staying at the family home with a newborn, her mother Kris brought their family physician in to vaccinate everyone who would come in contact with the baby.  That included the baby's grandparents and aunts/uncles.  What a great preventative health behavior to model on TV!

The show brought me back to a blog post I wrote last year to summarize my reactions to the PBS Frontline special "The Vaccine War".  One question I posed to readers was:

How can public health compete with the media and the internet?

One solution that I proposed:  Let's remember to share the spotlight with celebrities and other spokespeople that have influence over the public.  With anti-vaccine advocates often getting the spotlight (cough...Jenny McCarthy co-hosting The View), we often overlook that there are pro-vaccine celebrities.

This week, a colleague on Twitter shared the link to Jennifer Lopez's PSA for the Sounds of Pertussis campaign.  It was impressive.  First, for the selection of "JLo"- a mother of twins, who is known worldwide for her dancing, singing, and acting.  People are obviously interested in what she has to say- as evidenced by her 25+ million Twitter followers.  Second, her PSA includes the actual sound of a baby with Pertussis.  This is helpful because (1) it educates the public regarding what this cough actually sounds like and (2) without words it portrays the seriousness of the condition.  The baby on the recording is gasping for air.  As Jennifer points out, this sound is hard to hear for 60 seconds on the PSA...let alone coming from your own child.

The Sounds of Pertussis campaign is a joint effort between the March of Dimes and Sanofi Pasteur.  They have recruited other celebrities such as actress Sarah Michelle Geller and NASCAR Champ Jeff Gordon.  The campaign website includes both educational materials (e.g., information on transmission) and action oriented materials (e.g., a Grandparents' Guide to Pertussis that includes a pledge to get vaccinated).  The campaign has also expanded its use of social media to include a Facebook component called "Breathing Room".  This component allows new parents to educate their connections about Pertussis and invite them to take the pledge to get vaccinated.          

What Do You Think?

  • Can these pro-vaccine celebrities compete with the anti-vaccine messages we often see in the media/internet?  Why or why not?
  • Do you think that the Sounds of Pertussis campaign addresses some of the key barriers to adult vaccination (e.g., low perceived risk to self or baby?)


 

0
Let's Give Paris Jackson Some Privacy and Revisit Safe Reporting on Suicide (and Attempts)!

I always cringe when the announcement of a celebrity suicide or suicide attempt comes through my news feed.  First and foremost, because it is incredibly sad to learn that anyone is suffering enough to consider suicide.  Second, because the news coverage that will follow is often invasive and downright dangerous to the rest of us.  The way the media covers suicide can influence behavior negatively by contributing to contagion or positively by encouraging help-seeking.  I have often written on this topic for Pop Health and even as an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer.  However, the message is so important that it bears repeating.

According to multiple news outlets, Paris Jackson (daughter of the late Michael Jackson) was hospitalized this morning after a suicide attempt.  The story was apparently confirmed by her biological mother Debbie Rowe- Paris was hospitalized with cuts on her wrists.  Now I was already concerned that a 15 year old girl was having these personal, medical details released to the media.  Then I saw the coverage on TMZ and just got plain angry.  I won't link to it here because (1) the irresponsible coverage could be dangerous to readers and (2) I refuse to drive traffic to their site.

As a journalist (or public health communication professional) working on this story, your first stop should be Recommendations for Reporting on Suicide.  Although the guide focuses on suicide, the recommendations are highly relevant for attempt stories as well. The recommendations were developed by leading experts in suicide prevention and in collaboration with several international suicide prevention and public health organizations, schools of journalism, media organizations and key journalists as well as Internet safety experts. The recommendations are based on more than 50 international studies on suicide contagion.  Based on their recommendations, here are some of my concerns with the Paris Jackson articles:

  • Sensational headlines:  E.g., "Paris Jackson Attempts Suicide, Rushed to Hospital" (US Weekly)
  • Oversimplification:  E.g., "A source close to the family tells Entertainment Tonight exclusively that the reason Paris attempted suicide is because she wasn't allowed to go to a Marilyn Manson concert".
  • Including photos of the method of death (or in this case attempt):  TMZ has published multiple pictures of Paris (some undated) that zoom in on her wrists to identify possible cutting scars.  This is bad for several reasons:

A lot can be learned in public health by monitoring this media coverage, highlighting mistakes, and reinforcing safe messaging.  The Paris Jackson articles should:
  • Inform without sensationalizing
  • Provide valuable education to readers (including suicide warning signs, ways to help a friend/family member, and resources like the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline)
  • Seek advice from suicide prevention experts before reporting on data or making assumptions about Paris' intentions or medical history
  • Be hopeful! Emphasize that mental illness is treatable and many local and national resources exist


What Do You Think?
  • What was your reaction to the media coverage of Paris Jackson's suicide attempt?
  • What other resources would you add to my list to support safe media reporting on suicide and attempts?

0
Rent The Runway Rocks Real Non-Airbrushed Models: Us!


Like many of you, I have tried ordering clothes online.  And it never goes well.  They are always too tight or too long.  They immediately make you feel bad about yourself.  And of course- it is a huge pain to have to pack it up again and mail it back.  And after all that- you still don't have anything to wear!!  Weird, right?  The clothes looked great in the pictures.
 
The frustration of online shopping is a symptom of a larger problem.  Many fashion lines are not made to fit the average woman.  Rader Programs, a group of  eating disorder treatment facilities, estimates that the average model weighs 117 pounds at 5'll and the average woman weighs 140 pounds at 5'4.  No wonder my purchases are too tight and too long!
 
However, I'm feeling optimistic about change being possible in the fashion world.  As of last week, Rent The Runway, an online service that lets users borrow current season high-fashion, has expanded their  use of real women as models on their site.  Users can upload pictures of themselves in the clothes, and include details about their height, weight, and chest size.  The site will also have the capacity to allow users to search for women of similar body type, so that they can see how the clothes actually fit.  I think this is fantastic.  Not only will it hopefully cut down on the dreaded returns, but women will see models that look like them.  It can reduce the shame and stigma that many women feel for lacking the 117 pounds at 5'll "ideal".
 
This initiative follows what I hope is a pattern of push back on pop culture for upholding women to unrealistic ideals that may lead to unhealthy body image.  For example, we are seeing opposition to magazine airbrushing.  Earlier this year, an ambitious eighth-grader put the pressure on Seventeen Magazine to review its policies on airbrushing and consider the impact it could have on young readers.  Her online petition led the magazine to sign an eight-point "Body Peace Treaty", which outlined a commitment to never change models' body or face shapes. 
 
We are seeing celebrities (especially recently!) disclosing their battles with eating disorders- often discussing the pressure they felt being in the entertainment industry.  Over the past few months, we've heard from Katie Couric, Nicole Scherzinger, and Stacy London.   Last year, Pop Health reviewed Portia De Rossi's book- Unbearable Lightness, which discussed her life-threatening eating disorder in much detail. 
 
I hope that we are continuing to see a shift.  I hope that there is less stigma in disclosing or discussing body image concerns and eating disorders.  I also hope that the public continues to make their voices heard...whether they are fighting the magazine airbrush or the high fashion gown that will look terrible on anyone under 5'10.
 
What do you think:  With the initiatives above and their predecessors (e.g., the Dove Campaign for Real Beauty)- do you see evidence of a shift in pop culture from "thin" to "real women"?  What else needs to change to keep this initiative moving forward?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

0
Cameron Diaz: The Next Celebrity Nutritionist?

Cameron Diaz is busy with her next project.  Her rep confirms her interest in writing a nutrition book to help young girls.  She wants to use her celebrity for good- to encourage girls not to fixate on being thin but instead just to make healthy choices.

A few thoughts:

Of all the celebrities that I see pitching these types of projects (I'm looking at you Gwyneth Paltrow), Cameron actually seems to model a healthy lifestyle.  She is not too thin, but instead looks muscular and strong.  We always see her keeping active with surfing and regular gym workouts.

It is reported that (in preparation for the book) Cameron will be visiting high schools to talk to teenagers about their food choices and what is important to them.  She wants to get their input, e.g., how do they decide what to eat? Although this work will not be a formal "Needs Assessment", I like that Cameron will be out in the community and talking to the teenagers who are the focus of her book.  Doing formative work before a project that engages your audience is incredibly important in public health.  Hearing and seeing what the health problem/s look like first hand allow us to craft more effective interventions.  So I applaud Cameron for planning to do this outreach versus just planning to write a book that may or may not address the challenges faced out in communities. For example, Cameron can discuss the importance of choosing fruit over potato chips, but if a teenager does not have access to affordable fresh fruit in their neighborhood, then the recommendation is not helpful.

One challenge to this effort is that even though Cameron appears to model a healthy lifestyle, she is still a member of the Hollywood community that has contributed to setting an unrealistic standard for beauty.  We have seen her on numerous magazine covers looking very thin and of course airbrushed.  In public health, we always have to think- "is this the right spokesperson"?  It is important to know how teenage girls view Cameron.  Do they see her as part of the problem?  Or part of the solution?

Another challenge is that (from my perspective), celebrity "nutritionists" do not have the best track record for safety and accuracy.  Take Cameron's friend Gwyneth Paltrow.  She has regularly promoted nutrition strategies like detox cleanses and gluten-free diets.  Her extreme choices do not send a message of moderation to teenage girls.  In addition, Gwyneth's cover photos also contribute to the unrealistic standard for beauty.

As I've discussed many times on this blog, celebrities can be an incredible resource for public health.  They have a visible platform and extensive reach to many of our audiences.  However, that can work for us or against us based on the accuracy and relevancy of their messages.  It is imperative that they work closely with clinicians (e.g., physicians, nutritionists) and public health practitioners to craft the messages and design outreach programs.

What do you think about Cameron writing a nutrition book?

0
Integrating Public Health Content Into Media Coverage of Celebrity DUIs

Amanda Bynes is just the latest young female celebrity to be arrested for driving under the influence (DUI).  The media coverage has been extensive, with some outlets even raising the question, "Is she the next Lindsay Lohan?"  A fellow former child star, Lindsay Lohan has consistently been in the news the past 5 years with DUI arrests, rehab stints, and poor career decisions.  However, just a few weeks ago we heard the good news that she has been taken off probation from her DUI case...so hopefully things are looking up.

Pop Health has written about related issues in the past:  how soon is too soon to find a teachable moment in a celebrity DUI death?  How does popular media help establish the public health agenda? How does media coverage of public health issues (e.g., suicide) affect the public's health?

So now let's put the pieces together and discuss the work of public health researchers that focuses specifically on media coverage of young female celebrity DUIs.  In 2009, Smith, Twum, and Gielen published "Media Coverage of Celebrity DUIs: Teachable Moments or Problematic Social Modeling?" in the journal of Alcohol & Alcoholism.  They conducted an analysis of US media coverage of four female celebrities (Michelle Rodriguez, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan).  The study examined media coverage in the year after their DUI arrests (December 2005 through June 2008).  Among other things, the stories were coded for the presence of public health content (e.g., arrest, death, and injury statistics for DUI).  The authors found that the coverage was primarily focused on the individual celebrities (i.e., their legal and professional repercussions) versus broader social or public health impacts.  They recommended that future research examine both the news coverage and the comprehension and use of that content for policy and behavior change initiatives.

Coverage of a celebrity DUI has the potential to be a teachable moment, but we as public health practitioners need to take advantage of it.  We need to be monitoring pop culture news so that these teachable moments can be identified. We need to partner with journalists in order to make sure that a "public health frame" is incorporated in the development of the articles.  Most importantly, we need to continue to evaluate the media content and use that data to develop effective interventions and policy recommendations.

What do you think?
  •   What strategies/information channels do you use to stay on top of public health-pop culture news?
  •   How can the public health and journalism fields partner to take advantage of teachable moments and cover public health issues safely and effectively?


0
The Vaccine War: Public Health vs. The Media

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of speaking with Laurie Edwards, a writer and blogger who examines chronic illness, healthcare, life balance, public health history, and everything in between.  Among other topics, we talked about the role of social media and mainstream media in the vaccine debate.

So I thought of that conversation as I watched last night's re-run of PBS Frontline's special "The Vaccine War" (originally aired April 27, 2010).  I highly encourage advocates on both sides of the issue to check it out.

The piece was quite balanced with interviews on all sides.  For example, we heard from vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit, bioethicist Dr. Arthur Caplan, anti-vaccine advocate parents in Ashland, OR (with one of the lowest vaccine rates in the country),  Jenny McCarthy and her colleagues at Generation Rescue who continue to argue for evidence of the link between vaccines and autism, and from parents of a girl who almost died at 6 weeks from whooping cough.

It explored possible contributors to the fear of vaccines and/or the lowering vaccination rates:
  • 1998 Lancet article by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that linked autism to childhood vaccines (*This article has since been retracted and MANY U.S. and International epidemiological studies have found no scientific evidence of a causal link)
  • A new generation of parents that are too young to know the devastating effects of vaccine-preventable diseases like polio.  One interviewee used a term that I really like- "Community Recollection".  As Community Recollection of these diseases disappears, we can become complacent.
  • A false sense of security because many of these diseases are not seen frequently in the United States.  However, we forget that with the ease of air travel, borders are almost non-existent.  For example, the piece followed an outbreak of measles in San Diego that started when a non-vaccinated 7 year old from the US contracted it while vacationing in Switzerland and brought it home to classmates.
  • The Internet.  While it also offers many positive benefits regarding healthcare (e.g., access to information/publications; online support groups and connections with a "community" of individuals with similar diagnoses)- it also has its potential downfalls.
    • It can keep controversy alive- even after it has been disproven (e.g., the Wakefield article)
    • False or unproven information can go viral and it is hard to retract!  They use the example of the youtube video of Desiree Jennings (a 25 year-old Washington Redskins cheerleader) that claimed that a flu shot caused her debilitating muscle disorder.  
So how can Public Health compete with the Media and the Internet?
  • Let's not compete.  Let's collaborate.  Let's learn (either through our own capacity or collaboration) to effectively communicate public health information online.  Our biggest audience (the public) is not usually reading our peer reviewed journals or attending our annual conferences.  This is already starting to happen.  Public health organizations have active Facebook and twitter accounts, blogs, videos.  Let's keep going.  And let's train our public health colleagues/students in health communication.
  • Let's remember to share the spotlight with celebrities and other spokespeople that have influence over the public.  Like it or not, the way people get their health information and make decisions is changing.  They do not just agree with doctors or scientists.  I almost always see these debates featuring Public Health (scientist speaking in jargon) vs. Celebrity/Parent with moving emotional story about their child being injured by a vaccine.  That is hard to compete with!  Believe it or not (because we seem to only hear from Jenny McCarthy), there are also pro-vaccine celebrities.  Jennifer Garner and Kristi Yamaguchi have been flu vaccine advocates.  Jennifer Lopez and Keri Russell have been pertussis vaccine advocates.  Let's make sure the public knows that. 
  • Let's think about the framing and marketing of vaccination messages.  When the HPV vaccine is framed as a Cancer Vaccine for both boys and girls...versus an STD Vaccine for just girls/young women it is perceived very differently by the public.
Tell me what you think:
  • What can we do to change the current "Community Recollection" about vaccinations?
  • Other suggestions regarding how public health can collaborate with the media/internet sites to communicate more effectively with the public?

0
Lady Gaga Launches "Born This Way Foundation" To Promote Safety, Skills, and Opportunity for Young People


Today, in collaboration with Harvard University and other partners, Lady Gaga is officially launching her "Born This Way Foundation".  As discussed on this blog, on news outlets, and in the peer reviewed literature, bullying is a serious problem with potential connection to public health issues such as depression and suicide.  Lady Gaga has been a vocal anti-bullying advocate, and in 2011 channeled that energy into the development of a Foundation.  Lady Gaga and her mother Cynthia Germanotta, founded the Born This Way Foundation to foster a more accepting society, where differences are embraced and individuality is celebrated.

The launch is being held at Harvard University’s Sanders Theatre.  Lady Gaga and her mother will be joined on stage by Oprah Winfrey, author and speaker Deepak Chopra, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and esteemed Harvard Law School professor Charles Ogletree to discuss the vision of the organization, and how we can all get involved.

An academic symposium has been planned in conjunction with the launch.  The event invites researchers, policymakers, and foundation representatives to discuss ways to reach youth and promote a culture free from bullying.  I'm proud to see that my former employer, the Education Development Center, has been invited to the symposium and will share insights from their extensive research in this area.

I look forward to hearing more about the vision of the organization, because although Lady Gaga is hugely influential (at the time of this post, she had 19,773,280 followers on twitter), the strategies and tangible goals for the Foundation are not completely clear from their website.  Under their mission statement, they list three pillars of the Foundation:
  1. Safety
  2. Skills
  3. Opportunity
There is some discussion under those pillars of offering support to individuals through online communities, providing training in advocacy and community engagement, and providing opportunities to bring the national BTWF activities to the local level.  However, there are no details regarding how these strategies will actually be executed.  If you click on "Do Your Part" and "Review The Plan", it simply takes you back to the mission statement.

What strategies do you think could help BTWF support the three pillars of safety, skills, and opportunity?
What outcomes should they look at in order to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts?

0
Chris Brown's Return to the Grammys: The Other Public Health Story

Sunday's Grammys were a mixture of high and low notes (pun intended), as the joy was often overshadowed by the death of Whitney Houston.  As someone who grew up in the 80's singing her songs, I too was quite shocked and saddened.  Despite broad speculation of an overdose, I'll wait to post on Whitney until we have a confirmed cause of death.

However, there was a second public health story on Sunday night.  It was the three year anniversary of Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna...and he made his return to the stage.  While Grammy executive producer Ken Ehrlich has defended the decision to bring Brown back and believes that he deserves a second chance, the warm sentiment was certainly not felt by all.  I personally turned the TV off when he began his performance.  My facebook and twitter feed blew up with comments from friends and colleagues like, "I'm no math wiz, but I'm pretty sure domestic abuser + 2 years= still a domestic abuser".  Many celebrities (both Grammy attendees and beyond) voiced the same sentiments on twitter.  For example, Wil Wheaton said simply, "everyone who apparently forgot what Chris Brown did to Rihanna should read the police report on exactly what he did."

Do you think that Chris Brown was worthy of a second chance at the Grammys? 

In addition to a discussion of giving second chances, remembering, or forgetting what he did...we must also discuss those who actually encourage what he did.  While there were outraged tweets during his performance, there were also those providing support.  The tweets that I found most disturbing were those from young women poking fun at the assault and saying that they would be happy to have it happen to them anytime.  For example, one woman said, "chris brown could beat me all he wants, he is flawless."

One of the biggest problems in our society is that we have a culture of violence where intimate partner violence is acceptable and abusers are not held responsible for their actions.     

What do you think we can do to stop the culture of violence?

In my opinion, Chris Brown is still the same angry and aggressive person that he was 3 years ago.  For example, instead of rising above and ignoring any negativity, he continues to lash out.  He took to his twitter after the ceremony to address his "haters".  He said, "HATE ALL YOU WANT BECUZ I GOT A GRAMMY Now! That's the ultimate F*** OFF!"  The tweet has since been deleted and he tried again with a slightly less offensive message.  But I don't buy it.  

For those of you interested in a more in-depth analysis of the original media coverage of the assault, I'll offer a publication.  This article was written by some fantastic colleagues at Boston University School of Public Health:

Rothman, EF, Nageswaran, A, Johnson RM, Adams, KM, Scrivens, J, Baughman, A. (in press).  U.S. tabloid magazine coverage of a celebrity dating abuse incident: Rihanna and Chris Brown.  Journal of Health Communication. Available online ahead of print.

If you or someone you know needs help, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at:  1-800-799-SAFE (7233)

0
Why Everyone is so Angry at Paula Deen- A Guest Post for "The Public's Health"

Last week I had the pleasure of being invited to guest blog on "The Public's Health". The blog is a collaboration between Drexel University School of Public Health and The Philadelphia Inquirer. In multiple posts each week, the authors highlight contemporary, historical, and ethical matters that challenge public health professionals.

For my post, I was able to contribute a "Pop Health" story which examined Paula Deen's disclosure of her type 2 diabetes and the media and societal backlash which followed.

What do you think? Do celebrities have the right to talk about their health information whenever and however they feel comfortable? Or do they have a social responsibility to disclose as early as possible- and to discuss it in a way that is most likely to improve the public's health?

0
Anti-vaccine ads on Delta planes; Magic and Ellen as celebrity champions for HIV/AIDS prevention...and more- What Am I Reading This Week?

New pop culture and public health stories to check out this week:

1. Darrell Hammond of Saturday Night Live fame reveals that child abuse led to alcohol/drug use and cutting. He details the horrific abuse in a new memoir, "God, If You're Not Up There, I'm F*cked".

2. Fellow Boston University School of Public Health alum Elizabeth Cohen reports on the 20th anniversary of Magic Johnson's announcement that he is HIV positive. His announcement had an incredible impact on the public's health- both in terms of reducing stigma of those diagnosed and proving that the diagnosis is not always a death sentence.

3. Delta airlines is seeing backlash from public health organizations and other flu vaccine advocates after airing a 3-minute PSA from the National Vaccine Information Center that describes alternate ways to avoid the flu (besides getting the flu shot).

4. Ellen DeGeneres is named global envoy for AIDS awareness. The hope is that Ellen's enormous platform (from both her TV show and social media channels) will allow her to reach millions of people with the prevention message. Ellen is a partner in other important public health issues, for example- bullying prevention.

5. This week, Evelyn Lauder passed away from Ovarian Cancer. Evelyn was one of the powers behind the creation of the pink ribbon campaign for breast cancer awareness.

How about you? What are you reading this week?

0
#NoHomos on Twitter, "50/50" looks at Cancer, Johnny Depp's Rape Comments, Chris Christie's Weight, and Steve Jobs: What Am I Reading This Week?


Whew- it has been a busy week for Pop Health! Here are the top 5 stories I've been reading:

1. Twitter is no place for #NoHomo: Should Twitter take a more proactive stance regarding hate speech that can result in trending topics?

2. "50/50"- A Hollywood movie takes on cancer: Cancer has been a theme in many movies (e.g., "Funny People") and TV shows (e.g., "The big C" on showtime)- how does this movie compare?

3. Johnny Depp offers apology for rape remarks: Depp offers an apology for comparing being chased by paparazzi to being raped. Forgivable?

4. Chris Christie's Weight- Big problem or none of our business?: Although Gov Christie has recently announced that he will not run for President in 2012, the conversation continues about his weight and its influence on his ability to be a successful Governor or President. What do you think?

5. Steve Jobs and Pancreatic Cancer: There have been many stories about the death of Steve Jobs and the contribution of pancreatic cancer to his passing. I thought Celebrity Diagnosis did a nice job of guiding readers through his diagnosis.

Please use the comment box to tell me what you think about these stories and about others that you are reading this week!

0
Kissing on Southwest Airlines, Over-hyped Reebok Toning Shoes and More- What Am I Reading This Week?

There are many great Pop Health (Pop Culture- Public Health) stories in the news each week, so it can be difficult to narrow down my focus for a weekly post.

Therefore, I'm starting a new feature called- "What Am I Reading This Week?" to link you to my runner-ups:

1. Reebok agrees to settlement over "over-hyped" claims that its EasyTone shoes could tone leg and butt muscles better than regular shoes.

2. Perfect for football Sunday: Cheeseheads take issue with anti-cheese billboard (from groups promoting vegan diets).

3. L-Word actress gets kicked off Southwest flight for lesbian kiss (they say it was based solely on behavior, not gender).

4. Lady Gaga wants to make bullying illegal- wants meeting with the president.

Use the comment box to tell me what you're reading this week!

0
Celebrities and their Health Causes: What Happens When They Do More Harm Than Good?

Often on this blog I have spoken about the role of celebrities as the spokesperson or "champion" for various public health issues. Many celebrity names are synonymous with particular health causes (Katie Couric- Colon Cancer; Michael J. Fox- Parkinson's Disease; Lance Armstrong- Testicular Cancer; to name a few).

Over the past few weeks, several stories have emerged which beg the question, "what happens if celebrities do more harm than good?" Those in the public eye have such a broad and extensive platform to communicate with the public...what if they disseminate erroneous information or even worse- cause a panic?

The week of September 12 was quite busy! In the Republican Presidential Debate (in the context of discussing mandated HPV vaccines for children), Rep. Michelle Bachmann claimed that the HPV (Human Papillomavirus) vaccine is linked to mental retardation. To support her claims, Bachmann repeatedly told the story of being approached by a woman whose daughter suffered mental retardation after taking the vaccine. As those of us in science well know, one self-reported story does not equal a true incident. Even if true, one incident does not equal a trend or an epidemic. This story has been quickly picked up by scientists who are even offering money if it is proven true.

This same week, Dr. Mehmet Oz of the Dr. Oz Show (you may remember him from numerous appearances on the Oprah Winfrey Show), claimed that apple juice contains unsafe levels of arsenic. These claims followed research conducted by the Show which had a laboratory examine three dozen samples from five different brands across the United States. The samples were compared to the limits of arsenic set for drinking water by the EPA. Since the claims, many scientists have spoken out regarding concerns about the study's protocols and conclusions (for example, not differentiating between organic and inorganic types of arsenic). Many were concerned about the widespread panic caused by these claims and likened it to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

Of course, this is not the first time celebrities have caused a scandal following potentially false and dangerous claims. Jenny McCarthy has dedicated her life to proving the cause between childhood vaccines and autism. Shortly after Brooke Shields released her book, "Down Came The Rain", which chronicled her battle with postpartum depression- actor Tom Cruise (a Scientologist) publicly criticized her for taking antidepressant medication.

So what happens when these celebrities cause more harm than good? What happens when their claims are misguided, misinformed, and/or not based on evidence or science? The answer: they can have huge and far-reaching public health consequences. For example, as we begin to see illnesses like measles reappear- we have to wonder- "Is this the Jenny McCarthy effect?"

0
"What's Your Weapon?": Billie Jean King, Arthritis Foundation, Ad Council, and USTA Launch Arthritis Campaign



Before Twitter and the U.S. Open was a flutter this afternoon with the news of Venus Williams withdrawing due to the diagnosis of the autoimmune disease- Sjogren's Syndrome, the U.S. Tennis Association was focused on another health related issue. Today the press release went out that tennis legend Billie Jean King was joining the Arthritis Foundation, the Ad Council, and the US Tennis Association (USTA) to launch a public service campaign against arthritis (the leading cause of disability in America).



The ads, launched at the U.S. Open today, feature King (who has osteoarthritis- OA) and highlight the power of movement and exercise as "weapons" in the fight against arthritis. King tells viewers "tennis is my weapon" against arthritis. The ad then asks viewers, "what is your weapon against arthritis?" and directs them to the campaign's website in order to find out: Fight Arthritis Pain. On first view, I was not terribly impressed. The brief ad (33 seconds) does not tell you very much (e.g., King says tennis is her "weapon" but nothing is said about the benefits of movement). The goal of the ad simply appears to be motivating viewers to visit the website for additional information.



The other thing that is not clear in the ad (but clarified in the press release and website) is that this campaign is targeting OA specifically. While OA is the most common type of arthritis, it is not the only type. For example, in contrast to OA which breaks down cartilage, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (a chronic autoimmune disease) causes inflammation of the lining of the joints. Would the exercise recommendations be the same no matter what type of arthritis? I would say that distinction is unclear for viewers.



However, I did feel better when I read the press release and saw that these ads were tested in focus groups by the Ad Council. Testing your images and messages with your target population is incredibly important. It is reported that participants felt that the concept of "having a weapon" against arthritis was powerful and motivating. That is good news considering formative research by the Ad Council found that only 16% of OA sufferers surveyed felt "very confident" that they could manage their pain. Therefore, if an ad can make viewers feel empowered and confident- that is a good thing.



The press release did not describe the demographics of the focus group participants, but I am assuming they were similar to those originally surveyed (adults age 55+ with OA). If so, it would mean that Billie Jean King was an appropriate "Champion" for the cause and someone that audience admired, having watched her in the 1960s-1970s, her prime competitive years. However, I wonder if she would be the best choice for ads targeting arthritis sufferers in a younger demographic? After all, different types of arthritis can affect people of all ages. Again, this is another reason that I would have wanted to see a clearer definition of the audience for these ads. If we are focused on older adults with OA, then it is a great choice. If we are focused on people of all ages with all types of arthritis, then maybe not.



Overall, I give this campaign a "B". The impetus of the campaign is good in that it is based on research...research that shows that arthritis suffers are too sedentary and do not feel like they have control over their pain management. The campaign aims to address these barriers by empowering viewers with a "champion" who they admire and can model. The campaign also links them to a website with all the information they need about the benefits of exercise for arthritis. However, the execution of this campaign is not as strong as its foundation. It would have benefited from a more clearly defined audience and message.









0
Should Public Health Professionals "Give A Shit" About MTV's New Campaign?

Has anyone else seen #giveashit on Twitter in the past few days? MTV has launched the "Give a Shit" campaign to increase civic engagement and encourage people to voice their concerns for any issue about which they are passionate. Many are voicing concerns about important public health issues like access to clean water. Great way to engage young people, right? Using a play on words. Using foul language. But the question remains- what are the goals of the campaign? Will the campaign actually improve public health?



The primary strategy for messaging about the campaign is a YouTube video featuring Nikki Reed (of Twilight fame). The tone of the two-minute video is hard to classify. In some ways it appears to be a parody of a real PSA (e.g., it simulates Nikki on the toilet so she can use that time to "give a shit"). But then it seems to have genuine moments when it motivates people to join a movement- any movement. Nikki tells viewers that all they have to do is "give a shit". It doesn't matter if they don't actually DO anything...if they CARE, then the world's problems will cease to exist.



As you can imagine, I take issue with this premise. So much of what we know in public health is based on evaluation data that has shown us that "knowledge" does not equal behavior change. "Increasing awareness" about pregnancy does not eliminate unprotected sex. Having the "intention" to stop smoking does not help when someone is addicted to nicotine. Therefore, it is unclear to me how just caring about an issue like access to clean water will result in positive change.



Next, the video goes on to say that once you care about the issue, you should alert your social networks. It shows images of posts to Twitter like, "I just gave a shit about global warming". So I went into Twitter to see if it is actually happening, and it is. The #giveashit hash tag is alive and well and users are reporting that they care about children with special needs, animal cruelty, etc. But again, I'm still at a loss as to how this "caring" and "twitter posting" actually leads to an increase in positive civic engagement. I tried to look for additional information on their website: www.give-a-shit.org but the site is not currently functioning. That is a problem as well. If the goals of the campaign are already unclear, it does not help that users cannot access information beyond the YouTube video. Several advocacy websites offer a brief overview of the campaign that may be helpful in the absence of a functioning website.



So while the play on words is "cute" and I appreciate a campaign that aims to combat the apathy that can be rampant regarding serious public health issues...I don't understand how this campaign will actually change behavior. And no- I don't agree that just caring about an issue will make all problems go away. If it did, we in public health would be out of a job.



0
Media Must Cover Suicides Cautiously- In Today's Philadelphia Inquirer













An editorial that I co-authored ran in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. The piece is in response to media coverage of the suicide of a Philadelphia Firefighter. In a previous blog post following a celebrity suicide, I discussed the public health implications of the media coverage that follows. It can either encourage negative behavior in the audience by including unsafe and unnecessary details like detailing suicide methods...or it can encourage positive help-seeking behavior by including resources like the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. I encourage all bloggers, communication professionals, and journalists to review the expert recommendations on how to safely report on suicides.



I look forward to hearing your comments!


Older Post ►
Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )
 

Copyright 2011 popular health is proudly powered by blogger.com