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?

So Who Else Caught the Brain Surgery on Twitter Today?

If you were on twitter today, you may have seen the hashtag #MHbrain.  That stood for Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston (@houstonhospital).  Today they live-tweeted a brain surgery which removed a cavernous angioma tumor from a 21-year-old female patient.

According to the hospital's press release, the goal of the "twittercast" was to (1) educate the public about brain tumors and (2) demystify brain surgery by giving a look inside an operating room.  The surgeon, Dr. Dong Kim, added "Someone may have a loved one who is considering a similar procedure and perhaps they can glean some information from this twittercast that may help them make a decision about whether surgery is the right choice for them."

In authentic social media style, the hospital did not just send out information and images. They also had another neurosurgeon, Dr. Scott Shepard, serve as an online moderator who could respond to questions and comments from twitter followers in real time.

While there was much excitement over this event today, it is not the first time we have heard about surgeons tweeting from the operating room.  Back in 2009, CNN picked up a story about surgeons at Henry Ford Hospital in Michigan tweeting the removal of a cancerous tumor from the kidney of a male patient.  Just last February, Memorial Hermann was in the news for the first live tweeted open heart surgery.

A few thoughts on this trend:

How is Memorial Hermann evaluating their twittercast efforts?  

• Was this a huge marketing event or do they actually have health education goals?
• Are they simply looking at the numbers?  For example, the number of twitter followers (up to 13,400 from 5,100 in the past 3 months).  Or the number of visitors to Storify, a site which archives both the heart and brain surgeries.
• Are the demographics of twitter users reflective of their target audience?
• I would hope that they are thinking about how to evaluate the goals they explicitly laid out in their press release.  How will they show that a twittercast can increase knowledge about brain tumors?  How will they show that the public or potential patients have less anxiety about the procedure or choose it more often?  As always, it is important to state goals (for any public health activity) that are measurable.  

How is social media a benefit/challenge for physicians?

• I read an interesting blog post recently called, "Why social media may not be worth it for doctors."  The author was concerned about already burned-out doctors trying to learn and make time for ever-changing technology...with no guarantee that the technology will give them "return on investment".  Do the challenges outweigh the benefits?
• If physicians view themselves as "educators", how much value could twitter bring?

Are there patient safety or confidentiality issues that should be considered?

• Although the patient's name was protected and she gave permission for the twittercast, is it possible that any confidential information could be accidentally shared during the event?
• Although safeguards are in place, errors do happen in the operating room and throughout the hospital.  With the additional staff/equipment (and possible distraction?) in the operating room to conduct the twittercast, could we face an increased risk of error?

What do you think?

Facebook Adds Organ Donation To Timeline: Should We "Like" It?

Typically, I post on Wednesdays.  However, with so much chatter about Facebook's announcement, this felt more timely.
Starting today, you can add your organ donation status to your Facebook timeline using the "share life" tool.  If you are already registered, you can share your story about where and why you decided to become an organ donor.  If you are interested in registering, you can follow links to official donor registries.

ABC has been a primary news source for this announcement, interviewing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, demonstrating how to use the "share life" tool, and discussing myths and facts about organ donation.

Scanning Facebook and Twitter today (especially among my public health colleagues), the response seems to be overwhelmingly positive.  From my perspective, the Facebook tool has the potential to be effective (i.e., increasing the number of registered donors) because it focuses on action.  The tool is not for education.  The tool actually links to registries so that you can sign up.  The tool aims to increase the visibility of already registered donors, which in turn will influence others to sign up.  The tool aims to decrease the stigma and secrecy of talking about end of life decisions by putting it right up there next to your birth date and relationship status.  This may also influence others to sign up.  In previous posts, I have written about public health campaigns that use social media in order to reduce the stigma around an "undesirable" topic (e.g., STD testing).

Although I am 100% supportive of the mission of increasing organ donors and am familiar with the dire need for donations (e.g., 18 people will die each day waiting for an organ), I have a few reservations about "share life":

In today's New York Times coverage of the Facebook announcement, I read a sentence that concerned me (I added the underlining):

"The company announced a plan on Tuesday morning to encourage everyone on Facebook to start advertising their donor status on their pages, along with their birth dates and schools — a move that it hopes will create peer pressure to nudge more people to add their names to the rolls of registered organ donors".

I consider declaration as an organ donor to be a medical decision.  In public health and medicine, we strive for patients and the public to make such decisions from a position that is informed and lacks pressure from physicians or family or friends.  Therefore, I have reservations about people signing up without educating themselves first and/or because they feel pressure on Facebook.  Just a few weeks ago, I posted about "hashtag activism" and how easy it has become to get involved in causes via social media.  Are we as thoughtful when we participate in causes on Facebook as when we participate in real life?

My other ongoing concern is regarding the proper security and use of personal information that is gathered by Facebook.  Will your organ donation status result in particular advertisements being sent your way?  I remember updating my Facebook status to "engaged" 4 years ago and being overwhelmed by the wedding planning advertisements on my page.  There is increasing public outcry regarding privacy settings and the personal information you enter being used for Facebook to attract advertisers and other business opportunities. 

Again, I am 100% supportive of the organ donation mission.  I think the reach of Facebook offers tremendous public health opportunities (including the possible elimination of long wait time for organs).  While that is an attractive outcome, we must always remember to focus on the ethics of the process as well.

What do you think?

•  Facebook has become directly involved with several public health issues (e.g., suicide, bullying, organ donation).  Are their strategies effective?  Why or why not? 
• Do you foresee any unintended consequences from the organ donation tool?
• Will you include your organ donation status on your Facebook timeline?  Why or why not?

 

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?

"Hashtag Activism"- Is It Working For Public Health?

Last year on Facebook, my timeline was suddenly filled with status updates of just one word.  Red. Black. White.  "What is this?" I thought to myself.  It turned out that it was a breast cancer awareness campaign.  Facebook users were listing their bra colors to help prevent breast cancer.  And there are tons of these public health campaigns all over social networking sites.  "Like" our Facebook page to prevent cancer!  "Re tweet" this message to prevent heart disease!  For those of you familiar with my blog, you'll remember that I think "raising awareness" is the most counter-productive phrase used in our work.  It is not specific enough to measure for change and (on its own) it will not change health behaviors.  

So I thought of my frustration with these campaigns as I read a great article in the New York Times this week called, "Hashtag Activism, and Its Limits".  David Carr writes eloquently about the ease of supporting a variety of causes:

"If you “like” something, does that mean you care about it?  It’s an important distinction in an age when you can accumulate social currency on Facebook or Twitter just by hitting the “like” or “favorite” button.

The ongoing referendum on the Web often seems more like a kind of collective digital graffiti than a measure of engagement: I saw this thing, it spoke to me for at least one second, and here is my mark to prove it".

I like that David brings up the question of engagement here.  Many of these public health campaigns on social media just strive for "likes" on Facebook or "hits" on a website or "re tweets" on Twitter.  And not that they mean nothing, but those measures are just the tip of the iceberg in measuring audience engagement.  And audience engagement (beyond "raising awareness") is what could actually lead to public health activism, knowledge change, and ultimately behavior change. Leslie Lewis gives a great overview of Return on Engagement (ROE) on her blog "digital.good".  According to Leslie, ROE measures tend to be more qualitative and measure message reach and spread.  In addition to "likes", ROE also measures things like brand/campaign awareness, comments, shares, and returning visitors. 

I certainly do not think that all public health campaigns delivered via social media are ineffective.  On the contrary, I think that social media is an incredibly powerful tool for public health.  David Carr makes similar comments later in his article.  Challenging his initial skepticism of web activism, he lists several recent "campaigns" that have been quite effective (e.g., the reversal of Susan G. Komen de-funding Planned Parenthood).

However, to use social media effectively in public health, we must be strategic and we must evaluate.  

Some sample questions that I ask program planners:

• What is the goal of the campaign?  (e.g., to drive traffic to your website; increase hotline calls; increase specific behaviors like breast self examination?).
• How will the campaign activities (logically) lead to the desired goal/outcome?
• Are your goals/outcomes measurable?
• Have you thought about evaluation before launching the campaign?
• Besides the ideas listed above, how are you measuring "audience engagement"?

 
 What other questions should we be asking?

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?

Tumblr Contemplates A New Policy Against Self-Harm Blogs: Let's All Weigh In

Tumblr is a popular microblogging platform.  It lets you share anything from text to pictures to video.  According to their website, the average Tumblr user creates 14 original posts each month, and reblogs 3. The "reblog" button on all Tumblr posts allows a meme to spread rapidly across thousands of blogs with just one click.

As with other social media platforms, tumblr has an enormous reach (18,878,347,183 total posts as of the time of this blog).  Therefore, it has great potential to help and hurt the public's health as it facilitates communication among millions of people.

A few weeks ago, Tumblr presented to its users a challenge (and possible solution) regarding blogs that promote self-harm.  Their users are being asked to weigh in on the policy.  I think that is a smart move.

Here is an excerpt from the Tumblr staff blog: 

Our Content Policy has not, until now, prohibited blogs that actively promote self-harm. These typically take the form of blogs that glorify or promote anorexia, bulimia, and other eating disorders; self-mutilation; or suicide. These are messages and points of view that we strongly oppose, and don’t want to be hosting. The question for us has been whether it’s better to (a) prohibit them, as a statement against the very ideas of self-harm that they are advancing, or (b) permit them to stay up, accompanied by a public service warning that directs readers to helplines run by organizations like the National Eating Disorders Association.

We are planning to post a new, revised Content Policy in the very near future, and we’d like to ask for input from the Tumblr community on this issue.

The blog goes on to say that they currently think the right answer is to implement a policy against pro self-harm blogs.  They aim to focus only on blogs that actively glorify or promote these behaviors. They also intend to start showing public service announcements (PSAs) on specific search terms like "anorexic" or "thinsperation".  It is unclear from their post how this policy will actually be implemented.  It would take enormous staff resources to comprehensively review their site and remove concerning materials. 

Other online and social media platforms have struggled with similar issues regarding how to respond to users that may be searching for or posting worrisome content.  Here are a few examples of other challenges and solutions:

• When someone uses Google or Yahoo to search for the term "suicide", the link to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is provided as the first result.
• In December 2011, Facebook began a new service that allows "Friends" to report concerning posts.  Facebook then sends an email to the person who posted the suicidal comment encouraging them to call the hotline or click on a link to begin a confidential chat. Note that Facebook does not troll the site itself, but instead waits for reports to come in.  
• Pop Health has previously posted about the debate regarding Twitter's duty to restrict hate speech vs. its duty to promote free speech among its users.

From these examples, you can see that there have been a variety of approaches to address potentially unhealthy or unsafe posts on social media platforms.  Sites can decide to be inclusive of all posts, they can let users police each other and report concerns, they can post resources in response to keywords, they can actively prohibit certain content...or they can use some combination of these strategies.

• What strategy or combination of strategies is best for the public's health?  
• If users are prohibited from posting, does that make them more isolated and less likely to connect to services?
• Should the overall health of the user group outweigh the health of that individual?

Tumblr is encouraging users to weigh in on their plan...so I ask you to both comment here and contact them at policy@tumblr.com. 

Rainn Wilson Apologizes for "Poorly Conceived Date-Rape Joke": What Would RAINN Think?

When I saw a twitter headline today that read, "Rainn Wilson Apologizes for "Poorly Conceived Date-Rape Joke", I first thought, "Is there ever a well conceived date-rape joke?"  Next I thought, "Well- that's certainly a coincidence."

The coincidence being that the other RAINN (Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network) plays an important roll in calling out celebrities (and educating them) regarding the consequences of throwing around the term "rape".  The misuse of the term seems to be hitting epidemic proportions lately:

•   In June 2010, "Twilight" actress Kristen Stewart compared the constant scrutiny that she receives from the paparazzi to a woman being raped.  "What you don't see are the cameras shoved in my face and the bizarre intrusive questions being asked, or the people falling over themselves, screaming and taunting to get a reaction," she said of the constant paparazzi crush. "The photos are so ... I feel like I'm looking at someone being raped. A lot of the time I can't handle it. It's f---ed. I never expected that this would be my life." Stewart later apologized.  

•  In October 2011, actor Johnny Depp compared having his picture taken to being raped.  “You just feel like you’re being raped somehow. Raped. The whole thing,” he told Vanity Fair. “It feels like a kind of weird—just weird, man… Whenever you have a photo shoot or something like that, it’s like – you just feel dumb. It’s just so stupid.”  Depp later apologized.

• In November 2011, "Jersey Shore" cast mate Vinny released a song about raping strippers.  I will not repeat the lyrics here.  Vinny later apologized.

• In January 2012, actress Kim Novak took out an ad in Variety magazine to declare that she felt raped by the makers of the Oscar nominated film "The Artist" because the film used a score from one of her old movies.  The difference here:  Novak's team is not apologizing. 

Whether we like it or not, celebrities influence social norms.  When celebrities use the term "rape" as a joke or to describe their dislike of having their picture taken or their work borrowed, it cheapens what it really means.  It is meant to describe a violent act against women, men, and children...and it is a serious public health issue.  As with any public health issue, it is influenced at multiple levels (individual, interpersonal, community, society). The language we use everyday (whether to friends, family, co-workers, twitter followers, facebook friends) impacts our society on every level.  So think about the words that you choose and do your part to change the conversation.  

National Sexual Assault Hotline:  1-800-656-HOPE (4673)

The NFL Super Bowl Commercial: Has Dedication to Player Safety Really “Evolved”?

In between a fantastic Super Bowl game, gallons of salsa, Madonna’s half-time show, and many disappointing sexist commercials, I patiently waited for the last third quarter commercial break. Almost a week before, the New York Times ran a story about a Super Bowl commercial which would address player safety. The NFL was taking one minute of its own commercial time (valued in the millions) to talk about its commitment to the safety of its players...a commitment which has been questioned over the years.

The one minute spot opens in Canton, OH in 1906 and follows one long kick return 100 yards (and 100+ years). The design of the commercial is well done as it follows famous players through the years. As the years progress (as documented on yardage lines), the viewers see and hear a discussion of key safety innovations. For example, we see no helmets turn into leather helmets turn into plastic helmets. We also see the addition of the facemask and the elimination of dangerous hits on players (e.g., horse collar tackles). The voiceover (telling viewers, “Here’s to making the next century safer and more exciting than ever. Forever forward. Forever football”) is provided by a veteran linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens- Ray Lewis.

In any occupational setting, there is concern that creating a culture of safety can be difficult, especially when veterans want things to stay “how they’ve always been”. Lewis has 16 NFL seasons under his belt and a reputation for playing with intensity. In many cases, he would be the hardest kind of player to get on board. Therefore, it is ideal for the Evolution campaign to have recruited someone like Lewis as a champion for its mission!

I also thought that the choice of words “safer and more exciting” were important. One concern about the increase in equipment and restrictions on hits is that it destroys the essence and entertainment of football. That essence being big men hitting each other, playing through pain, and ultimately being declared “stronger” and “winner”. So for Ray Lewis to promise that game excitement will actually increase (along with safety) is quite important for a possibly skeptical audience.

In addition to the commercial, an accompanying website was launched to provide detailed information about the history of the game and various rule changes. The website provides a very cool interactive timeline which outlines each decade. For example, the 1960’s bring “the world’s first Super Bowl”. It also brings fibershell and plastic pads, universally worn facemasks and the banning of grasping a runner’s facemask (1962).

From a public health perspective, I’m impressed with the quality and persuasiveness of both the commercial and website. A successful campaign was really necessary for the NFL, considering that it has been criticized in the past for its lack of commitment to player safety. Most notably, there has been much concern about the NFL’s protocols for dealing with player concussions (and the short and long-term consequences of those injuries). In recent years, we have seen a variety of public health strategies to address concussions.

They have developed and/or expanded safety committees to compile and analyze head injury data. We have seen numerous policy changes regarding both on the field play and the treatment of injuries. For example, in 2009 the NFL adopted a stricter statement on return-to-play for a player who sustains a concussion. The 2009 statement advises that a player who suffers a concussion should not return to play or practice on the same day if he shows any signs or symptoms of a concussion that are outlined in the return-to-play statement. In addition, the NFL has increased its use of financial penalties for helmet to helmet hits which are especially dangerous.

We have also seen educational materials for coaches and players regarding concussions. In fact, Pop Health critiqued the materials released in summer 2010 (“Concussion: A Must Read for NFL Players”).

While there is still criticism of the NFL’s commitment to player safety and there is always room for improvement, I think the “Evolution” campaign is effective. Reflecting over 100 years of football through the commercial and website, it is clear to the audience that they have come a long way. They have used various public health strategies to reduce injuries (i.e., equipment innovation, policy change, education campaigns, and probably the hardest strategy- culture change). In Ray Lewis, they have effectively retained a respected veteran to champion the cause. Finally, they have reassured the fans that the game will remain (and even increase) in excitement despite additional safety measures.

What do you think? Was the commercial just a PR opportunity for the NFL to defend themselves against recent criticism and lawsuits regarding player concussions? Or did you find it to be an effective reflection of successful safety innovation coupled with a sincere commitment to player safety moving forward?

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?

"Starving Secrets": Does Lifetime's New Reality Show on Eating Disorders Offer a Path to Recovery or a How-To Guide to Disordered Eating?

Last night, a public health colleague (@bethg24) tweeted about the new Lifetime reality show called "Starving Secrets". The show will be hosted by Tracey Gold (who had her own very public battle with an eating disorder) and feature real individuals struggling from anorexia, bulimia and other eating disorders.

According to the National Eating Disorders Association (NEDA), as many as 10 million females and 1 million males suffer from an eating disorder in the United States. Therefore, it is a serious and relevant public health problem that (not surprisingly) gets media attention. "Starving Secrets" is not the first movie or television show to take a documentary-style approach to portraying those that suffer from these disorders:

1. MTV's series "True Life" (which I have long admired for their portrayal and stigma reduction efforts regarding various medical conditions...I have been less impressed by episodes like "I'm a Jersey Shore girl"). True Life aired "I have an eating disorder" on April 3, 2003.
   


2. HBO documentary "Thin": This special followed four women during their in patient stays at the Renfrew Center in Coconut Creek, Florida. It premiered on November 14, 2006. I remember this being both incredibly powerful and difficult to watch.



3. E! "What's Eating You?": Admittedly, I only watched one episode of this show. True to E! form (Ahem- Kim's Fairytale Wedding), they are more about sensationalism versus journalism and stigma reduction as compared to other networks.

As with the portrayal of other mental health disorders in the media, I hope that these shows will do something positive. Specifically- reduce the stigma around these disorders and normalize help seeking behaviors.

However, I am also greatly concerned that shows like "Starving Secrets" will actually endanger vulnerable audience members by offering a "how-to guide" to having an eating disorder. The concern stems from research on pro-eating disorder websites. They can offer "thinsperation" to stay skinny by the images portrayed. They can also give tips and strategies for hiding/refusing food or getting rid of it. Sometimes people don't realize that by telling their story in vivid detail, they are actually sharing their "creative tips" for sustaining an eating disorder.

That said, I will definitely be setting the DVR on December 20 to see the show and assess it more accurately. What do others think? Do reality shows like these have the potential to endanger the public's health? Or do their "pros" (e.g., stigma reduction) outweigh the risks?

Miami Dolphin Brandon Marshall's New PSA for Borderline Personality Disorder

In July 2011, Brandon Marshall revealed that he was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). According to the National Education Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder, this serious mental illness centers on the inability to manage emotions effectively. The condition which has strong heritability (68%) and a high suicide rate (10% of adults with BPD die by suicide), produces symptoms such as impulsivity, anger, and chaotic relationships.

When Brandon announced his condition this summer, he vowed to become the face of borderline personality disorder. He seems to be following through on his promise, as he has just released a public service announcement (PSA) in collaboration with the National Education Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder. The 33-second video is primarily focused on 3 key messages:

1. Prevalence of this condition is high (15 million Americans)
2. There is hope (treatment exists for those who suffer and education exists for families coping with the disorder)
3. There are resources: visit the NEABPD website or follow Brandon on Twitter (@BMarshall19) for more information

I like the PSA for several reasons. It is simple with clear messages (above). The messages are delivered both verbally by Brandon and visually with key words appearing on the screen. The "call to action" is clear. Viewers are directed to the NEABPD website and Brandon's Twitter feed for more information.

I also like that this particular health issue has found a champion or spokesperson. Unlike other mental health conditions like depression with several celebrity spokespeople (e.g., Brooke Shields), less is known about BPD and those who suffer from it. Experts in mental illness stigma like Patrick Corrigan state that there are several strategies for reducing stigma...and one of those strategies is called "Contact". Contact challenges public attitudes about mental illness through direct interactions with persons who have these disorders. The contact does not have to be face to face, but instead can occur through a channel like a PSA.

The strategies that I see for improving this PSA are focused less on its composition, but instead on its distribution/promotion. Although the video has been on YouTube for 6 days, it only has 309 views. Announcements about the PSA are located primarily on football blogs (e.g., Shut Down Corner) or BPD specific websites. It does not seem that the PSA has been picked up by mainstream media or health blogs. This is in sharp contrast to PSAs I've spoken about previously on Pop Health, like in July 2011 when I discussed Kim Kardashian's ovarian cancer research spot which currently has 33,431 views.

Readers- please weigh in: which mental health advocacy organizations would have the best "reach" in promoting this PSA? What other strategies could they use for distribution/promotion?

Dr. Pepper Ten: A "Manly" Campaign That Promotes Gender Stereotypes Instead of Health for Men

Yesterday while on the elliptical machine at the gym and watching ESPN (surprise! women watch ESPN), I had the displeasure of seeing the new commercial for Dr. Pepper Ten no less than five times.

Dr. Pepper Ten is a new 10-calorie drink being rolled out by the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc after their client research revealed that men are hesitant to drink diet drinks because they aren't "manly" enough.

The TV commercials that I watched showed men with huge muscles driving through the jungle, shooting guns, and battling snakes. The men say things like, "Hey ladies. Enjoying the film? Of course not. Because this is our movie and this is our soda, you can keep the romantic comedies and lady drinks. We're good."

According to several online reports (e.g., the MSNBC link above), the campaign also developed a Facebook page which contains an application that allows it to exclude women from viewing content. In addition, the page includes games and videos aimed at being "manly." Several twitter users also report that the campaign encourages viewers to "rat on their friends for not being manly". If true, I have no idea how "unmanly" behavior is being reported.

My analysis:

It is great that advertisers are using focus group and other data to develop products and ad campaigns. They taught many of us in public health the importance of these strategies and we are forever grateful. However...

This campaign promotes strict gender stereotypes: Men act like this and women act like this- no exceptions! This dangerous norm contributes to serious public health problems. For example, the traditional ideology of masculinity has been explored for its relationship to negative outcomes like bullying and high risk sexual behaviors.

This campaign attempts to encourage men to drink a "healthier" soda (less calories, real sweeteners) without making them feel like they are dieting...because after all- dieting is only for women. Too bad the obesity rate is hovering between 32-35% for both men and women.

I have seen weight loss/health for men done much more effectively by other companies without insulting viewers. For example, after they saw their services being utilized by more men, Weight Watchers and NutriSystem rolled out men's programs. Weight Watchers presents strategies for making healthy choices in settings where men may find themselves socially (e.g., at a BBQ or at the bar). To reduce the social stigma around participation, they recruited strong male role models like former NFL quarterback Dan Marino. An ABC story on the companies' programs says "Calorie Counting Can Be Macho".

The strategy used by NutriSystem and Weight Watchers to reduce the stigma around healthy behaviors will be much more effective long-term than simply tricking people into being healthy.

For those readers who think I'm only offended by the campaign because I'm a woman, please see a few tweets from Tuesday night...authored by men. The first by my husband, who wrote multiple posts on Dr. Pepper Ten before I ever voiced my disgust with this campaign:

@jeff_underscore: "Dr. Pepper 10 - I think your ad campaign is insane, insensitive and sexist and unfortunately everywhere".

@sorryeveryone: ".@drpepper i really liked your soda but you know what I like more? treating women like they're human beings and letting men be themselves".

Readers: What do you think of this campaign? Do you think it will be effective in getting men to drink these "healthier" sodas?

#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!

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!

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?"

"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.

The East Coast Earthquake, Real Time Twitter Chat, and Facebook Applications for Disasters

Well! Today was an interesting day at the office. Up and down the east coast, many of us felt the tremors resulting from an earthquake in Virginia. While I would like to report that we all stayed calm and participated in orderly, safe, and well rehearsed evacuations...that was not the case. It appeared that the shock of experiencing an earthquake (such a rare event on the east coast) caused a little chaos. On my way into my office to grab my bag before hitting the stairs, I experienced a "George Costanza" type moment as a fellow staff person almost knocked me down in her rush to get out. I heard similar stories from my husband who works 4 blocks away. Upon recognition of the earthquake, his co-workers made a beeline for the safest escape route...the elevator?!



After the shaking took us down 13 flights of stairs, I quickly turned to the only reliable source for real time information- Twitter. Since I was the only one in the area who either grabbed my phone or had twitter, I quickly read off what I knew: "It is a 5.9 earthquake in Virginia"; "My colleagues felt it in- Baltimore, DC, Boston, NYC, North Carolina"; "No damage except one broken window is reported in Philadelphia". After being given the go ahead to return to the building and settling back into our work, we received an official text/email from the University reiterating the information Twitter delivered an hour before. According to Twitter's official profile tonight, within one minute of the #earthquake, there were more than 40,000 earthquake-related tweets. They reached 5,500 tweets per second (TPS).



As I discussed in a related post back in March 2011, the question for public health professionals continues to be- "What is the role of social media in emergency preparedness and recovery?"



I believe we are making some strides in answering that question. Just yesterday, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR)- located within the US Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS)- launched a contest: The ASPR Lifeline Facebook Application Challenge. The goal of the contest is to create applications that prepare individuals for disasters and build resilient communities. Those who opt into the application will be able to identify "lifelines" or Facebook friends that agree to be an individual's emergency contact and act on their behalf in case of an emergency. They will also be able to create a personal preparedness plan and share that plan and the application with others.



Even without the formal application, we have seen social network sites be used for checking in with friends/family and for getting information out quickly. For example, I follow the Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management on Twitter, so I got the message quickly that our 9-1-1 system was being inundated with calls since the earthquake and we should only use it with a real emergency...for infrastructure damage, call 3-1-1 instead.



While the Facebook application sounds like a great addition to emergency preparedness, it is important to also consider implementation issues which will impact its reach and effectiveness:

• Is the application only available to Facebook members who download it ahead of time? Or will it be available to anyone via the mobile web?
• Do these Facebook members typically update their profile via mobile devices in addition to stationary computers (which may not be available during an emergency)?
• During the emergency, are there cell networks/wifi to support the communication? (e.g., many reported that cell networks were jammed immediately following the earthquake)
• Do these "electronic" preparedness plans need to be rehearsed the same way as "in person" plans in order to increase effectiveness?

The HHS-ASPR contest runs August 22-November 4, 2011. I look forward to seeing the winning applications and hearing about how the dissemination will be conducted and evaluated.



What were your experiences today during the east coast earthquake? What did you hear/see from your colleagues? How did you get/send information to others? Please share in the comments section below.

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.

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!