0 Should We Trust Similac's "The Mother'Hood"?

If any of you frequent parenting blogs, Facebook groups, or classes, you no doubt saw a link to Similac’s new video “The Mother’Hood”. Trust me- please watch…

I laughed (and cried) watching this video, because it is right on. My favorite line:
“Drug-free pool birth, dolphin assisted”.

In my 51 weeks of parenting so far (yes, my little guy will be 1 year old next week!), I have found the following issues to be HOT and often full of judgment in my circle of parenting groups:

• Feeding- the early months (breastfeeding vs. formula feeding- or both!)
• Feeding- the later months (purees vs. baby led weaning; organic food vs. regular food; how and when you introduced solid food)
• Vaccination 
• Stay at home vs. parents who work outside the home (and many parents, fall into both camps depending on the day!)
• Car seats (how long you stay rear-facing; whether you use them on planes)
• Cloth vs. disposable diapers (and other decisions which impact the environment)
• Sleep practices (cribs vs. co-sleeping, crib bumpers, sleep training)
• The type of childcare you select (day care center, in-home daycare, nanny, au pair) 

The list could go on and on….and these are just the hot topics I’ve found in the infant world!

The Mother’Hood Message: Why Does It Help?

The reality is that new parents can often feel very isolated and judged. This has many public health implications, especially for women at risk for postpartum depression. So for that reason, I like the primary message of the campaign which is that we should focus on the things that unite us, not divide us. At the end of the video, we read:

“No matter what our beliefs, we are parents first”.

And although the “cliques” (e.g., the bottle feeding group, the breast feeding group) are meant to show our separations…I also think it can mean that you will find others to spend time with who have a similar approach to parenthood that is compatible with yours. And that is reassuring.

This video is part of a larger campaign from Similac called “The Sisterhood of Motherhood”. The tag line for the campaign is, “Where moms get encouragement, not judgment”.

Can We Trust This Message From a Formula Company?

When I watched the video, I thought to myself- “makes sense this comes from Similac, their customers know a thing or two about being judged”. As I have previously written, it concerns me that public health has not found an effective way to promote breastfeeding without stigmatizing formula feeding.

So I was a little surprised to see (in social media and news article comments) that many viewers liked the video until they realized it came from Similac. Some expressed feelings that the message was less genuine since Similac stands to benefit financially when there is less public stigma about formula-feeding. One commenter wrote, “I was all for this, until I found out that it was created by Similac”.

Tell Me What You Think:

• Does the fact that the video comes from a formula company make the message less meaningful or genuine? 
• Why or why not?

And Can We Trust A Message That Forgot About Dads?

I was really excited to see Dads in the video! They were baby wearing and caring for their kids- it was great. They were even included in the tag line “No matter what our beliefs, we are parents first”…but in the next screenshot, we find out they were excluded from the campaign overall: “The Sisterhood of Motherhood”.

Many online commenters focused on this exclusion. Several asked, “Why not call it “The Parent’Hood”.

In my opinion, this is an unfortunate miss in an otherwise funny, relevant, and moving video. Why include Dads in the video just to exclude them at the end? What about families that have two fathers or a father who serves as the primary caregiver?

Tell Me What You Think:

• Was the video and overall message ruined for you because fathers were excluded? 
• Why do you think that the video and campaign developers made that decision? 
• Do you think they regret it now?

Detail: Should We Trust Similac's "The Mother'Hood"?

0 Vaccination is a Work of Art

Image credit: http://artofsavingalife.com/

Vaccination is one of the most important issues we work on and champion in public health. This week we’re talking about nine confirmed cases of measles at Disneyland in California. We just had a measles scare locally in Philadelphia at the beloved Please Touch Museum. News that this year’s flu vaccine is less effective due to a mutated strain has started a public debate about the “worth” of the shot (spoiler alert: you should still get your flu shot!) And internationally, many health workers put their lives at risk every day to deliver vaccines that are so desperately needed.

Over the years, there have been many attempts to creatively and effectively communicate the value and safety of vaccines to key audiences (parents, health care workers, etc.) For example, efforts have included (1) incorporating themes from popular movies/TV shows (check out this Star Wars PSA from the 1970’s!), (2) engaging celebrities as champions, and (3) creating engaging documentaries. The newest effort comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Their campaign, “The Art of Saving a Life” tells the story of the past success and future promise of immunization using the talents of more than 30 world-renowned photographers, painters, sculptors, writers, filmmakers, and musicians. The goal of the campaign is to increase world-wide knowledge about the value of vaccines so that the Foundation (and partners) can build momentum and raise funds in their efforts to reach millions more with these life-saving inoculations.

A few of my favorite images in the campaign:

• Flowers- The Beauty of Vaccines by Vik Muniz
• Reaching Children Everywhere by Sophie Blackall
• Crossing the Waterways in Bangladesh by GMB Akash

Campaign developers are hoping that the images will be widely shared and viewed, and inspire dialogue and donations. Since the campaign is targeted towards an international audience, I think primarily using images (vs. writing) will bridge countries, cultures, and literacy levels effectively. You can follow #vaccineswork on social media to participate in the discussion.

In terms of evaluating this campaign, I am assuming (and hoping) they will track:

• Activity on social media that uses the campaign hashtag #vaccineswork. *One thing to note is that this hashtag is not unique to this campaign. So their staff may need to sort through what is directly sharing/discussing the campaign vs. general vaccine promoting communication to get a more accurate view of the hashtag’s usage.

• How many people go on from their campaign website to visit the sites of partnering organizations listed on the bottom of each page (CDC, PATH, UNICEF, etc.) And how many of those people go on to take action on a partner site (i.e., make a donation, sign a petition, register to volunteer, etc.) 

• Some type of qualitative feedback on the art pieces themselves. Overall, are these images more effective for communicating with an international audience? Were certain pieces more effective than others? If so, why were they more effective and with what audiences?

Tell me what you think:

• What images/stories in the campaign do you find most interesting or inspiring?
• What other outcomes besides those above should be evaluated?
• What other campaigns have effectively used art work to communicate about a public health topic?

Detail: Vaccination is a Work of Art

0 Media Reporting about Domestic Violence: What’s Missing?

Please welcome Elaine J. Alpert, MD, MPH as today's guest writer. Dr. Alpert is an internationally-respected family violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking education, advocacy, and policy expert. She is an independent curriculum design and policy consultant in all forms of violence prevention, teaches at the University of British Columbia School of Medicine, and provides expertise in Human Trafficking as Senior Global Health Fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Division of Global Health and Human Rights. She also serves as a Trustee of the all-volunteer Steve Glidden Foundation, which provides summer camp scholarships for children who are homeless, refugees, abused, or affected by family or community violence. She can be reached at ealpert@rcn.com. 

I’ve been watching news coverage about Ray Rice’s domestic violence (DV) assault for the past two days now and I have to say that, on balance, I am disappointed.

As a veteran physician, educator and scholar in the fields of domestic violence, sexual assault and, more recently, human trafficking, I’ve been paying attention over the years both to events (often tragic) as they happen, and to trends in both media expertise and public perception. Here are some observations along with a few words on how I think the media can do better:

Media attention ideally should:

• Tell the viewing, listening, reading, or clicking audience what happened (report the news);
• Raise questions that people might not otherwise have considered;
• Educate, inform and raise awareness among the general public; and
• Motivate people to action (for example, by providing ready resources for those at risk, and by showing those who want to help how to do so).

How good a job do our media really do (in general) when reporting about DV? Typically, for a few days after a high profile DV assault or murder, we see coverage about whatever “event” transpired, along with passionate and generally well-meaning attention paid to DV as a whole. Overall, (and not specific to the Rice case), we tend to see variations of:

• Shock or disbelief that such a nice guy could have done such a terrible, unanticipated thing, often supported by “evidence” of niceness – he was a pillar of the community, he walked his dog every morning, he brought the paper to the elderly neighbor’s door, he belonged to the neighborhood watch, etc.  Often these “nice guy” testimonials come from neighbors or passers-by;

• Proclamations that this was either a one-off act of insanity or passion, or at least could not have been predicted  – he must suddenly have lost control, perhaps something happened (provoked him) to make him “lose it,” no one saw this coming, etc. These “no-one-saw-this-coming” testimonials are usually from acquaintances, co-workers, or local officials, often accompanied by assurances that the neighborhood itself is “nice,” “quiet,” or “tranquil,”  or at least full of hard-working, honest and earnest people. Accompanying footage often shows tree-lined streets and picket fences whenever possible;

• A general wringing of hands about difficulty the “victims” (or their children) may encounter moving forward (sometimes accompanied by additional angst about extended family members, pets, or traumatized neighbors). A few even engage in hand-wringing about the future well-being of the perpetrators (think Steubenville). All commentators can participate freely in the wringing-of-hands exercise, including reporters themselves; and

• Assurances that whatever tragic event just transpired was the tipping point and things will be better (this will not happen again, police responses will be improved, weapons will be better regulated, social service referrals will be handled more promptly, etc.). Such assurances usually come from local or statewide officials.

And then, almost like clockwork, once the arraignment (or funeral) has passed, and the world turns its attention to the next short-cycle news event, coverage moves to the next ratings-boosting headline.

Although still early, this pattern is already being replicated in the Ray Rice assault. The current pundits – at least on the news clips I am watching – are predominantly:

1. NFL or other sports experts/journalists talking about how it's important to figure out who in the league knew what, and when they knew it, while proclaiming how shocked they were when these allegations first arose last winter because Rice was – guess what – a pillar in his community;

2. Journalists and authors who are either psychologists or other counselors, or who have had personal experiences with DV and have written (and are, at times, quite obviously plugging) books about what "battered women" are “like” or what they “go through,” earnestly trying to explain Janay Rice’s various (and some would argue, stage-managed) "stand by your man" statements;

3. Legislators who proclaim (sometimes with passion) that DV is bad and VAWA is good; or

4. Lawyers who wonder why Rice was allowed to enter a "diversionary" program and was not jailed for aggravated assault.

Some of this commentary can add value to the societal discussion that needs to take place. Clearly, it is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

What I do NOT see - and what I think really needs to be featured prominently – is reporting that provides:

1. Commentary from DV experts, including community-based or national experts from DV advocacy organizations, recognized scholars, and those whose expertise is in primary prevention – changing conditions to prevent DV from occurring in the first place. Baltimore (and the DC Metro area) has all of that to offer - and then some.

2. Resource information for the viewer (or reader) on how to get help or how to get involved to help. This can easily be offered as a “crawler” with the vital information scrolling past at the bottom of the screen on TV or as a sidebar in print or on the internet.

At least as far as I have seen, very few "pundits" have talked about how to reach out to, and empower, survivors.  No one (at least on broadcasts I’ve seen) has told viewers who may be in danger that there are vital community-based services in most localities and how to contact them to get help. Not one has talked about the restorative power of support groups (though lots of pundits have talked about how important it is for the Rices to get one or another kind of therapy for things that may or may not have happened in their own childhoods). Not one has talked about how to engage men and other bystanders as active allies to challenge and change entrenched social norms that tolerate and promote violence. And not one has displayed the National DV hotline phone number (1-800-799-7233) or website (http://www.thehotline.org/).

Many years ago, when print media reigned supreme, the Boston Globe included an inset box with every article about DV. The box included a stylized image of a telephone, words identical or similar to “To Get Help,” and a DV hotline number. This boxed information was normally inserted in the final layout process. During a layout makeover several years ago, this vital information got dropped and, to my knowledge, has not been restored.

Including “To Get Help” info about DV in print, on TV news, and on web-based news sources is such a no-brainer. Why not include it automatically in news reporting?

None of this is rocket science – whenever you read about a disaster of any other kind – from Katrina to Sandy to tornadoes – there is ALMOST ALWAYS commentary from experts in the field, accompanied by a box or informational inset that provides information for people who need help or who want to volunteer, contribute or help in some other way.  Why is there a different set of rules for DV?

So we have come a long way I guess, but the media has still not got it quite right – at least not yet.

Janay – if you read this, your local DV organization is ready to reach out to you without judgment, and with compassion, patience, information, empowerment, and support.  If only the TV would tell you the phone number…

Detail: Media Reporting about Domestic Violence: What’s Missing?

0 Olivia Wilde, World Breastfeeding Week, Infant Formula, and A Critique of the Language We Use to Talk About It

My son taking a bottle of formula in the NICU (February 2014)

When my baby boy arrived, he weighed 4 pounds, 13 ounces. He entered the world 8 weeks early and spent 29 days in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU). When your baby is in the NICU, there is enormous pressure to breastfeed. The nurses rolled a hospital grade pump to my bed side just hours after delivery and minutes after my first visit to my baby’s incubator in the NICU. “Breast milk is like medicine for preemies”, I was told. Every day I pumped around the clock and delivered milk to the NICU in the insulated bags they provided…like I was packing his lunch for school. Every milliliter was carefully inventoried and measured by the NICU nurses. I always knew from the looks on their faces if I had made enough to feed him for the day. Like I said- enormous pressure. Things were going okay until about 10 days after delivery. I developed mastitis on the right breast. For those unfamiliar, mastitis is an infection of the breast tissue. I had pain, high fever, and chills. After two antibiotics it resolved. Then I developed a second mastitis infection on the other side. The pain was excruciating. The infections did a number on my body, my sleep, and my milk production (and yes we worked with lactation consultants and did all sorts of tricks to try and increase production). My husband and I made the decision to switch my son to formula at 3 weeks old. We did it for his health, my health, and my ability to care for him when he was discharged. I can easily say it was the best decision we could have made. My sweet boy absolutely thrived on his special preemie formula. He tolerated it very well, grew, and got stronger. We are incredibly grateful for formula. To us, it is an amazing public health innovation. It feeds our baby when I cannot.

So it is through the lens of both a (proud) formula feeding mom and public health practitioner, that I examine the current public health campaigns focused on birth and infant feeding. A recurring theme for me is concern about the language being used in these campaigns. Somehow public health has not found an effective way to promote breastfeeding without stigmatizing formula feeding.

For example:

• All birthing hospitals in Philadelphia have officially discontinued the practice of giving free formula to new mothers. While I understand that this strategy is supported by evidence, it is part of a larger international initiative to make hospitals “Baby Friendly”. So using that logic, providing formula is “unfriendly” to babies? This message was reinforced by Nurse McGinn who was interviewed for the philly.com story. She reports that she “was given free formula and threw it out”. Quotes like these reinforce the message that feeding with formula is equivalent to giving your kid poison. 

• A friend sent me a link to a wonderful story about supporting formula feeding moms during World Breastfeeding Week. This article does a great job of examining the language being used in this campaign. The terms connect breastfeeding with “winning” and achieving “goals”. So the flip side is “losing” and “falling short of your goals”? This can be a rough reminder for formula feeding moms. For many women, the switch to formula was made after extreme pain, guilt, and feelings of failure. 

Recommendation: When thinking about health communication, I’m a big fan of testing out campaign terms, along with their antonyms. This can help you to anticipate unintended consequences of your messages.

For example, a public health colleague tweeted that we should use the language “breastfeeding is normal” instead of “breast is best”. Although it was not her intention, I read that as meaning that anything other than breastfeeding is abnormal. So formula feeding is abnormal?! Not a great message to send to women.

However, this kind of message is often communicated. In the Olivia Wilde photo spread for Glamour Magazine which includes a photo of her feeding her son, she says “Breastfeeding is the most natural thing…” I guess it is, unless it did not work for you and your baby. Then it feels pretty unnatural.

So I ask readers: 

(1) While these breastfeeding and baby friendly campaigns have well-intentioned public health goals (which I support):

• What are the unintended consequences of their language and communication choices? 
• Do they help reinforce the divide between formula feeding and breastfeeding mothers?
• What about the women who both formula and breastfeed? Where do they fit in?

(2) What are your suggestions for more effective language? How can we simultaneously promote breastfeeding without stigmatizing formula feeding?

Detail: Olivia Wilde, World Breastfeeding Week, Infant Formula, and A Critique of the Language We Use to Talk About It

0 In Honor of The World Cup: My Favorite Public Health Themed "Things Tim Howard Could Save"

As the World Cup came to a close this afternoon, I had fun revisiting my favorite #ThingsTimHowardCouldSave. For those of you that missed this fun Twitter hashtag: Back on July 1st, the United States Men's National Soccer Team played Belgium in the World Cup. Although the US lost the match, its goal keeper Tim Howard was amazing with 16 saves. His performance inspired an outpouring of memes that speculated on things that Tim Howard could save around the world. 

Since I am fascinated by strategies for using popular culture to engage people in public health, I was happy to see my colleagues join in and use Tim Howard to draw attention to:

(1) Substance Abuse

(2) Global Vaccines & Immunization

(3) Infectious Diseases and Various Disasters 

This isn't the first time that I've written about public health agencies aligning with a trending topic in order to engage a new or broader audience. What do you think?

• Is this an effective way to engage a larger audience?
• How should public health agencies evaluate such efforts? What metrics are important?
• Should agencies dedicate staff (on an ongoing basis) to monitoring such popular culture trends in order to develop timely social media content? Why or why not?
• Please share other examples of Tim Howard/Public Health tweets that I may have missed!

Detail: In Honor of The World Cup: My Favorite Public Health Themed "Things Tim Howard Could Save"

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?

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

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!:

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

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?

Detail: Research Notes: The Angelina Effect

0 What Public Health Can Learn About Branding From "Parks and Recreation": Fluoride, TDAZZLE, and H2Flow

"All I have on my side is facts and science...and people hate facts and science".

-Leslie Knope

On the November 21, 2013 episode of Parks and Recreation called "Fluoride", the gang once again tackled an important public health issue.  Since the towns of Pawnee and Eagleton have recently been combined, the City Council embarks on a vote regarding the merger of the towns' water reservoirs.  The Eagleton reservoir contains Fluoride and a merger would mean Pawnee residents would drink water with Fluoride for the first time in their history.

The pro-Fluoride contingent (led by Councilwoman Leslie Knope) quickly learns that Fluoride, despite all its public health benefits, faces a serious image problem!  Fellow Council members scare the public by describing Fluoride as everything from a dangerous chemical to a mind-control tool used by Communists.  When Councilman Jeremy Jamm proposes a Pawnee Clean Water Bill that would prohibit adding anything to the water supply (forever), Leslie's Parks and Recreation Administrator Tom Haverford proposes a solution:

"Jamm's already ruined Fluoride.  Everyone's scared of it.  What if we called it something else?  We re-brand."

-Tom Haverford

"What are you saying?  We need to sex-up Fluoride?"

-Leslie Knope

"You got to give people something to get excited about."

-Tom Haverford

The result:  TDAZZLE.  Leslie and Tom describe it as "not a chemical; it is an aquatic-based social media oral experience".  Their presentation on TDAZZLE engages the residents with video, social media, and a free give-away.

When Jamm fights #TDAZZLE with an idea that would actually fill the drinking water with sugar, they re-brand again.

The result: H2Flow.  Tom encourages Pawnee residents to think about H2Flow as an app for your teeth.  The more flow you take in, the more sparkle points you get.  If you get enough sparkle points, then you're on your way to your first Aqua Badge.  If you get enough Aqua Badges, they'll welcome you to the H2Flow Platinum Club.

By the time the episode ends, the re-branding has been successful.  Every Pawnee resident will have H2Flow (a.k.a. Fluoride) in their drinking water.

While this episode and the re-branding campaigns are over the top and ridiculous, they offer some important lessons to public health:

(1)  Science, facts, and reason are not always enough to change public attitudes and behaviors.  
If they were, everyone would stop smoking and get a flu shot.  Leslie and Tom acknowledged this and threw out their dry presentation of chemistry/statistics.

(2)  Language matters
One of the biggest challenges for Fluoride's image in Pawnee was its association with the term "chemical".  Chemicals are considered dangerous and toxic- so why would anyone want them in the drinking water?  Leslie and Tom had to change the way that Fluoride was being described.

(3) Get creative
Integrate advertising principles to get people on board with public health initiatives. Engage audiences by utilizing trends and aligning the "product" with what the public wants/values.  Leslie and Tom used catchy names, social media, and games to connect with residents.

(4) Keep trying
Public health problems/interventions often need to be re-framed in order to make mid-course corrections and keep up with new trends/data/challenges.  When TDAZZLE was defeated by Jamm's "Drink-ems", Leslie and Tom quickly re-branded as H2Flow.

This "image" battle is playing out across the country every day and impacts many public health issues (e.g., vaccinations).  The Fluoride battle even played out this year in Portland, Oregon. In a smart Scientific American article about the Fluoride vote in Portland, the writer Kyle Hill highlights the importance of language, communication, and framing:

"Yesterday’s vote was a failure of science communication, and it falls on public health officials to rectify that, to take back the word “chemical.” Perhaps re-framing the conversation in terms of dental health or water fluoridation as regulation, not just addition, could help. Until political questions are seriously informed by scientific answers, fear and freedom beats facts."

What Do You Think?

• Parks & Recreation Fans:  What other lessons for public health did you find in the episode?
• What examples can you share that highlight a public health issue/intervention that has been successfully re-branded or re-framed in recent years?
• How can we better train public health professionals in health communication/advertising strategies that are so crucial to the success of their work?

Detail: What Public Health Can Learn About Branding From "Parks and Recreation": Fluoride, TDAZZLE, and H2Flow

0 A Pop Health Book Review of "Deadly Outbreaks"

I was always a fan of "House, MD", a medical TV drama that followed a team of physicians tasked with diagnosing patients with mystery symptoms that stumped every other doctor.  I loved the twists and turns, the hypotheses, the puzzles.

I kept being reminded of House as I read Dr. Alexandra Levitt's new book, "Deadly Outbreaks".  She profiles seven cases where real life medical detectives (aka: field epidemiologists) solve mysteries involving exotic viruses, unexplained deaths, and occupational safety (just to name a few!)

As I thought about the relevance of "Deadly Outbreaks" to Pop Health, I kept coming back to the role of communication between these medical detectives and the public.  This communication is heavily impacted by the media (which can help or hurt an investigation!)  I was fascinated to read about this relationship in the cases presented (from 1976-2007) and think about how it will evolve in the future along with our health communication channels.

Several cases offered particularly striking lessons in health communication:

Lesson 1:  The Role of Communication in Promoting Fear or Stigma

Chapter #4:  Obsession or Inspiration
This case (1976) chronicled the discovery of what would later be named "Legionnaires Disease". With U.S. citizens already worried about a possible influenza epidemic (due to a suspicious death earlier in the year), the medical detectives had to contend with media coverage that fueled public fear:

"The U.S. public, bombarded by daily news stories, was disturbed and frightened by the outbreak in Philadelphia, even though swine flu was quickly ruled out as a possible cause."

(Page 84)

"The public was primed and ready to believe that something big and scary was about to arrive, and it had."

(Page 84)

Chapter #7: A Normal Spring
This case (1993) followed the trail of a virus affecting people in New Mexico (later discovered to affect people in the four corners (New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah). This case was interesting because it presented the challenge of managing the intersection of media coverage and local culture (Navajo people were disproportionately impacted by the condition).

"The Navajos were also unhappy at being linked to the disease in Four Corners. The newspapers not only printed the names of dead relatives, but also referred to the disease as the "Navajo flu," stigmatizing an entire people."

(Page 174)

Lesson 2: The Role of Communication in Promoting Health and Safety

Chapter #5: Deadly Desserts
This case (1994) which involved a Salmonella outbreak, highlighted a successful public awareness campaign! After Salmonella was linked to their products, the Schwan Company conducted a recall and asked customers to discard or return all uneaten products that may be affected.

"Schwan's even sent their trucks door-to-door to retrieve ice cream from each household."

(Page 124)

"Schwan's public awareness campaign- advising its customers not to eat its ice cream -was unprecedented and has been praised and studied as a model of good corporate citizenship."

(Page 124)

Lesson 3:  What's In A Name?  The Importance of Language

Chapter #4: Obsession or Inspiration

The newspapers called it "Legionnaires Disease" first. This popular name would later become official (and was approved by the American Legion).

"It was named Legionella pneumophila ("lung-loving"), in honor of the American Legionnaires.  Although many affected groups do not want the stigma of having an organism or a disease named after them, the leaders of the American Legion decided that the name would honor their fallen colleagues."

(Page 111)

Chapter #7: A Normal Spring

It is customary to name a newly isolated animal-borne pathogen after a geographic feature around the place it was discovered.  Therefore, names such as the "Four Corners virus", "San Juan virus", and "Muerto Canyon" were proposed.

"...the Navajo community was uncomfortable with names that would tie them to the new disease..."

(Page 181)

In response to this concern, scientists settled on a neutral name for the pathogen: Sin Nombre, the No Name Virus.

Overall Thoughts

I highly recommend this book. While I highlighted some of the health communication lessons here, there are lessons for a variety of public health disciplines. It is a great resource for public health students:  Dr. Levitt does a wonderful job of defining key public health terms (e.g., case control study) and providing lots of practical examples. It is a great resource for current public health practitioners who should re-visit lessons from past outbreaks as we tackle the challenges of disease surveillance, domestic/international outbreaks, and the disturbing anti-vaccine movement. This book gives us a good idea of the diverse skill set needed by today's public health workers....and I believe communication skills are at the top of the list. We need scientists who can do the work and also negotiate the media and the challenges of communicating risk to the public. As online news and social media become ubiquitous, I'm curious to see how public health handles the challenges of the 24-hour news cycle where health myths or facts can be spread in the blink of an eye.

What Do You Think? Would love to hear from others who have read the book!

Disclaimer: I was invited to review "Deadly Outbreaks" by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) and provided with a copy of the book.

Detail: A Pop Health Book Review of "Deadly Outbreaks"

0 5 Reasons Why I Hate The New “Brosurance” Ad

Earlier this week, a “Brosurance” ad was launched as part of the “Got Insurance” Project.  The project is part of the Thanks Obamacare campaign, created by the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and ProgressNow Colorado Education.  According to their website, the goal is to educate everyone about the benefits of the Affordable Care Act.  I checked out the ad after seeing mixed reviews from colleagues on Twitter.  I immediately hated it.

Here’s why:

1.  It is unoriginal.  “Got Insurance?” is simply a rip-off of the “Got Milk?” campaign tagline.  “Got Milk” has been around since the 1990’s and encourages the American public to consume more cows’ milk.

2.   It promotes unhealthy behaviors.  One unintended consequence of this campaign could be that the ad (featuring cool bros doing keg stands) promotes binge drinking as the norm for this population.  This norm is also promoted through the presence of red “keg cups” which appear in the bros hands, as well as surrounding them on the ground.  Binge drinking is associated with many public health problems from injuries to alcohol poisoning.

3.  It continues to brand the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as “Obamacare”.  The widespread branding of ACA as “Obamacare” has negatively impacted public health’s ability to effectively communicate about the law’s benefits and features.  Aligning the healthcare law solely with the President’s name has created a polarizing effect among the American public along party lines.  As demonstrated earlier this month by Jimmy Kimmel, the use of both names to describe the law has created a lot of confusion.  Many Americans actually think they are two completely separate healthcare policies.

4.  Its success depends on people understanding “Bro”- a term with unclear meaning.  What exactly is a “Bro”?  Does it mean the same thing to all people?  In health communication, it is important that we test out our terminology with the target audience to make sure that we have a clear definition of words and don’t offend anyone with our materials.  Interestingly, NPR used twitter in June 2013 to crowdsource some definitions for “Bro”.  As you might expect, there was wide variation in responses.  In addition to there being racial implications of the word, it can apparently be associated with anyone from a Jock to a Stoner.

5. Its target audience is unclear.  According to multiple articles, the target audience for this campaign is 25 year old healthy males.  Does the image portrayed match that population?  I saw the image and thought it represented young college students at a party.  If I was a part of the target audience, I would be offended by this image.  It makes me wonder if the image and message (“Keg stands are crazy.  Not having health insurance is crazier.  Don’t tap into your beer money to cover those medical bills.”) were ever tested with the target population.  Many 25 year olds have serious responsibilities from careers to academics to families to debt.  This ad makes them all look like a bunch of idiots going on a bender.  But don’t worry!  “Obamacare” (and the American people) will be there to pay for any injuries suffered when these “Bros” inevitably hurt themselves after being dropped from a keg stand.  

What Do You Think?

Detail: 5 Reasons Why I Hate The New “Brosurance” Ad

0 #NotDeadYet: Slate Sparks An Awesome Online Discussion of Life, Medicine, and Public Health

Last Thursday Slate, a daily web magazine, kicked off a series on life expectancy.  I highly recommend taking the time to read the articles, which cover everything from notable public health advances to improving maternal/child health outcomes.  I was very pleased to see many public health organizations sharing these articles with their followers.

While the content was enough to draw me in, I was particularly intrigued by the online dialogue that was sparked by this series.  Over the past week, my Twitter feed has been filled with colleagues participating in the discussion using the hashtag #NotDeadYet.  In the series' first post, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet?", Laura Helmuth explores why life expectancy has doubled in the past 150 years.  At the end of the post, Laura asked readers to send their #NotDeadYet survival stories to Slate's twitter or email accounts.  A selection of the submitted stories ran today to wrap up the week-long series on life expectancy.

With so many newspapers and blogs (mine included) heavily depending on the comment section to initiate discussion, I was intrigued by the idea of starting an accompanying Twitter hashtag thread.  Impressed by the high participation rate just on my own feed, I reached out to Laura Helmuth to gather more information about her dialogue with readers.  She was very gracious to respond to my questions during what I assume has been a very busy week with the series!    

She shared that Slate received more than 200 emails from people sharing their stories (some of them quite elaborate). They also received about 800 responses on Twitter.  In terms of story content:

• About a quarter of the emails concerned childbirth- women who would have died giving birth and people who would have died when they were born. 
• Many of the Twitter messages were also about childbirth, including a lot of men who tweeted that they would be childless widowers right now if it were not for modern medicine. 
• Slate also heard from a lot of people who survived a burst appendix. Lots of people were saved from nasty infections by antibiotics. And some had gruesome accidents that were patched up in surgery. Lots of people have had heart surgery. Many people credited their anti-depressants for keeping them alive. A surprising number mentioned that they were treated with antivenins for snakebite! 

Laura noted that this hashtag thread was especially heartwarming because "people were taking a moment to share their scariest stories and express gratitude that they’re ALIVE".  She also said that "it’s a great reminder that so many of the people we know would be dead if it weren’t for treatments we sometimes take for granted". A big thank you to Laura for sharing these responses and her reactions!

After putting this post together, I have two messages- one about the content and one about the strategy that Slate used for communicating this story.  

• (1) It is important to look back and inventory the medical and public health advances that we take for granted.  Last year I wrote about the wonderful Frontline documentary, "The Vaccine War".  When discussing fears of vaccination and the decrease in childhood vaccination rates, the documentary noted that this new generation of parents 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.  We are seeing the devastating results of this complacency with outbreaks of preventable disease (for example the outbreak of Measles just a few weeks ago in Texas). 

• (2) We in public health should take note and learn from the strategies that Slate has used to engage readers.  We are always looking for ways to initiate conversation beyond the articles we publish or the classes we teach or the webinars or twitterchats that we facilitate.  A few observations:
• The hashtag thread allowed them to take the discussion beyond the comment section onto Twitter.  
• Hashtags are easily searchable, so new participants could quickly be gained that did not originally follow or read the magazine.  
• The hashtag #NotDeadYet was innovative and "catchy" not boring like #PublicHealthAdvances.  
• Readers also had an incentive to share their stories, since Slate was selecting the top 50 to wrap up the series.   

I'd love to hear from my readers!

• Did you read the Slate life expectancy series?  Reactions to share?
• Have you tried similar strategies to engage readers with the content that you distribute?  Success stories or lessons learned to share?

Detail: #NotDeadYet: Slate Sparks An Awesome Online Discussion of Life, Medicine, and Public Health

0 #RoyalBaby Offers Public Health A Unique Opportunity To Advocate For Maternal and Child Health

As Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, went into labor early yesterday morning, public health organizations and advocates took advantage of the opportunity to talk about maternal and child health.  Since much of the world was following the #RoyalBaby story, it made sense to make the connection to public health work.

Here are some of my favorite tweets and topics:

VACCINATIONS

 

 NEWBORN SCREENING

BREASTFEEDING

Andy's tweet was in response to this image from Oreo:

PRENATAL SMOKING

SUPPORT FOR NEW PARENTS

As I've noted in related posts, I hope these organizations are evaluating their communication strategies!

• Have they seen an increase in traffic to their websites and resources?
• Have they engaged a new audience by aligning with the #RoyalBaby news?
• What organizational resources are needed to develop communication plans that coordinate with timely global and pop culture news?
• What lessons learned can be applied to future communication efforts? 

What do you think?

• Are these types of communication strategies effective in reaching a broader audience?
• Are there other relevant public health tweets that you felt were creative and engaging?  Please share!!

Detail: #RoyalBaby Offers Public Health A Unique Opportunity To Advocate For Maternal and Child Health

0 Pinning Public Health: A Spotlight on Hamilton County Public Health

On June 18, 2013 "How and Why Should We Pin Public Health?" became one of Pop Health's most popular blog posts.  So you can imagine my excitement to share a follow-up piece that spotlights the Pinterest work at the Hamilton County, Ohio Public Health Department! 

Today's post is written by Christy Cauley, M.Ed., an Electronic Communications Specialist, who is responsible for the department's social media strategy.  Hamilton County Public Health (HamCoHealth) was established in 1919 to serve more than 460,000 Hamilton County residents living outside the cities of Cincinnati, Norwood, Sharonville and Springdale. With a staff of more than 80, including sanitarians, plumbers, health educators, nurses and epidemiologists, Hamilton County Public Health strives to prevent disease and injury, promote wellness, and protect people from environmental hazards.  

I am very fortunate to work for a local public health department that understands the value of a strong social media presence. Hamilton County Public Health  has a strong presence on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and now we’re expanding our presence on Google+ and Pinterest. The latter’s image-centered format poses many challenges to public health entities. After all, who wants to look at pictures of syphilis?

That simply means we have to get creative. Rather than pinning a picture of syphilis, I’ll pin a picture of a cute stuffed amoeba that represents syphilis. The photo still links to an article that lets everyone know there is a syphilis epidemic in Cincinnati and what they can do about it, but they are spared the sometimes graphic images that are associated with public health.

We also have to consider our audience. Our Pinterest audience is quite different from other social media outlets. For starters, there is a much stronger female presence on Pinterest. In fact, the vast majority of our followers are women. That affects our pins and our boards – we have a Women’s Health board for example. Our pins have much more to do with family health and safety than our other social media pages. We tend to focus on health, nutrition and fitness, things that matter more to women than men. We have many pins on Pinterest that do not make it to our Facebook or Google+ pages because the audience just isn’t right for it.

Growing our audience has been challenging on Pinterest. Few people outside the profession are really interested in public health until there is a reason to be interested – like an outbreak of West Nile Virus, for example. We take the usual steps – following others’ boards, liking, commenting and repinning when possible. But what we really want is interaction with our stakeholders on our own boards. We want to get our messages out and know that our audience is hearing them.

To help with that goal, we have “public” boards where we allow others to post to our boards (and we have been invited to do the same). This creates boards with people of similar interests who can share pins more easily. We are careful to include a disclaimer on these boards however, and we do monitor outside pins. Our public health and safety boards can only be pinned on by us, but our recipe and fitness boards are open for our followers to share their favorite pins and they do. We pin to a public board called Health Communication & Social Media from Raed Mansour, where social media and communications professionals can share their ideas. Before, our only interaction with these professionals was on Twitter.

Interestingly enough, the place where we receive the most interaction on Pinterest is one of the public boards we were invited to pin to – Cat World, a board by Joyce Egoodman. Yep, you read that right, Cat World. What does that have to do with public health, you ask? Not a lot, although we can connect pets to our emergency preparedness and heat safety topics quite easily. But, people who love cats are our stakeholders. Public health affects everyone, even our pets. And who doesn’t like cute cat pictures?

How it works is we will find the cutest cat picture on our following boards in the morning and repin it to Cat World with a message about public health or safety. That pin then gets repinned by anyone who likes the picture – not necessarily the message. In turn, our message gets disseminated all over Pinterest and it only took a few seconds of our time. Our Cat World pins get commented on, liked and repinned much more often than our other pins because that board has a wider audience (for now).

One of the Social Media for Public Health (#SM4PH) Twitter chat participants (@AmandaMPH) mentioned that there is a LOT of unhealthy dieting information on Pinterest and we have also found that to be the case. That’s one of the reasons it’s so important for health departments to have a presence on Pinterest, so we can put out accurate information that people can trust.

We’ve found that the image is as important as the message. As a result, we keep our messages short and sweet and we keep our pictures creative. For example, did you know Ryan Gosling is the poster boy for public health? There are hundreds, maybe even thousands of Ryan Gosling memes and many of them are public health centered. We try to utilize them on “Fun Friday” as much as possible.

Another small thing we do is change our board covers often. When new stakeholders visit our page, we want them to see a captivating image that makes them want to view the board, but we also want to make sure that the pin in question is toward the top of the board. I can’t tell you how many pages I’ve visited where I wanted to repin the board cover image, but once I clicked the board, it went on forever and the cover photo was nowhere to be found. We want our stakeholders to find things easily. It’s a small thing, but don’t underestimate its importance to the aesthetics of your page. And don’t neglect the description and category areas either.

We have also taken advantage of @PinGraphy, which allows us to schedule pins for certain times and days. When interaction matters so much and we do not have someone on social media on the weekends, this tool is invaluable. (We use HootSuite for scheduling our other social media sites.)

Getting our feet wet in Pinterest has been challenging. We have made a lot of changes to our boards since we started in response to feedback from users. We’re still learning, but we hope that Pinterest will be a valuable tool in spreading our messages about public health and safety issues in Hamilton County, Ohio and throughout the world.

Detail: Pinning Public Health: A Spotlight on Hamilton County Public Health

0 Instagram It! Using Instagram for Public Health

This week's guest post for Pop Health was written by Alyssa Anderson.  She is a Community Health Education graduate student focusing on health promotion and work site wellness. Originally, she thought employee wellness was her niche but soon discovered that social media took 1st place in her heart. Finding ways to weave health promotion, marketing, and communication with social media is her main focus these days. She currently lives on Pensacola Beach, FL, enjoying her slice of paradise on the Gulf Coast. 

Follow Alyssa on Twitter, Instagram, and pin with her here!

There is certainly a wide range of social media channels discussed on Pop Health. However, as I was browsing and chatting with Leah about this guest post, we discovered that Instagram had not yet been covered. I jumped at the opportunity to highlight some public health organizations using this channel. And with the revealing of Instagram Video, the timing just seemed perfect.

A quick search of Instagram revealed that a number of public health organizations are actively using this photo-sharing application.

• Chicago Department of Public Health (By the way, congratulations to the Blackhawks!)
• American Public Health Association
• Austin, TX Department of Health and Human Services (what they did is really great, more to come!)
• The Red Pump Project (Hey, National HIV Testing Day is June 27!)
• American Cancer Society
• The list continues…

While there are quite a few public health organizations on Instagram, their usage differs. For example, Chicago Department of Public Health is sharing mostly promotional messages, such as

It may seem simple and a no-brainer, but these posts have received little engagement. A "like" here, a comment there, but no real involvement from other followers.  In fact, Chicago Department of Public Health only has 195 followers. In a city of 2.7 million, their Instagram is having very little reach.

On the other hand, the Red Pump Project has 905 followers. They promote awareness and education for women and girls about HIV/AIDS using the red shoe as their symbol. Users can tag their pictures with #RockTheRedPump to show their support. Typical posts are from events, putting faces to their movement, and event promotion. Here are a few snapshots:

The images are more colorful and vibrant than those posted by the Chicago Department of Public Health. And some image descriptions have a call to action…asking followers to like and share, comment below, etc. The second picture has 47 likes and most have over 20 likes with comments.

On social media, using calls to action or cues inspires people to do just that. Regardless of the message or reason for using social media, engaging with your target audience is key and helps to expand your reach.

Now, the city of Austin tried something this past April during National Public Health Week. They tasked their audience, the citizens in the city to help them answer a question: What is public health? Instagram users were to snap a picture of what public health means to them in Austin with the unique tag #austinpublichealth.

Such a great idea! Think about it, a photo journey from your target audience about what public health means to them. You could almost use these as unfocused focus groups and see what your audience does with the resources you have provided.

Unfortunately, only 17 pictures were tagged with #austinpublichealth. Bummer.
Here’s what I think could have gone better:

• Promote, promote, promote! If these pictures were to be part of a larger campaign, creative marketing strategies to get the word out could have been used.
• Incentives. As much as we want to believe everyone cares about public health, you sometimes have to lead people with a carrot. There could possibly be red tape with giving away prizes to the best picture, but perhaps an award or certificate could have been used.
• Engage. No other users engaged with the 17 pictures, no one championed the program from the department.

So we’ve seen the good (The Red Pump Project), the bad (Stanley Cup winning Chicago…I’ve got to throw my hometown a bone!), and the different (#austinPublicHealth). The biggest take-away from this would be inviting engagement.

• Tell people what you want them to do, kindly. Share this post! Double-tap if you think #vaccines rock! 
• Take interesting pictures. We see your event posters all over town and we’re just as blind to them online as we are in real life. Snap a shot of a child wearing a bike helmet and elbow pads instead of a flyer with Bike Safety Tips listed. 
• Be a real person. People want to engage with other people, not ambiguous brands or images.
• Test NEW things. Don’t be afraid to try things out and don’t feel bad if they fall flat! 

And since we are discussing trying new things, have you tried Instagram Video? How do you like it compared to Vine? I think the length is going to be great for public health professionals, much better than a 6 second loop. What sorts of videos would you like to see for #publichealth?

(P.S. Comment below and share this with your friends!)

Detail: Instagram It! Using Instagram for Public Health