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?

"E-Lane" for Pedestrians: An April Fools' Day Prank With Real Public Health Implications

Earlier this week, Philadelphians were treated to an April Fools' Day prank courtesy of Mayor Michael Nutter and the city's Office of Transportation and Utilities.  Across the street from city hall, an "E-Lane" was designated for pedestrians who use (and are distracted by) their electronic devices while walking.  While the city only expects to keep the joke "E-Lane" around for a week, they also hope that it starts a dialogue about pedestrian safety and people looking out for themselves while walking around the city.  Since this April Fools' week also happens to coincide with National Public Health Week (a time dedicated to recognizing the contributions and challenges of public health), I thought it was a great story for Pop Health.  So I took a stroll down the "E-Lane" on Monday to take these pictures and to get the dialogue started.

While I have written about (and am a huge supporter of) the vast and ever expanding benefits of mobile devices for public health, I also acknowledge the challenges that they have created.  Even though Philadelphia created the "E-Lane" as a joke, drivers and pedestrians distracted by electronic devices have become a serious issue.   

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website on distracted driving tells us that each day, more than 15 people are killed and more than 1,200 people are injured in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver. Distracted driving occurs while doing another activity that takes your attention away from driving; these activities can increase the chance of a motor vehicle crash.  While distracted driving can include talking on a cell phone, texting, or eating, texting is most dangerous because it takes your eyes off the road (visual), hands off the wheel (manual), and takes your mind off driving (cognitive).

As with any emerging public health problem, we are beginning to see:

• Research:  papers on distracted drivers and pedestrians are being published in the peer reviewed literature.  
• Education: cautionary tales of distracted driving are emerging in the popular media.  Just in the past few months, the Today Show has hosted several sets of parents who lost children due to texting and driving. 
• Celebrity Spokespeople:  Teen sensation Justin Bieber is partnering with the Remember Alex Brown Foundation and Phone Guard's Drive Safe.ly application to promote responsible texting.  The application reads text (SMS) messages and emails aloud in real time and automatically responds without drivers touching the mobile phone.
• Policy Change:  Just a few weeks ago, Pennsylvania became the 35th state to enact an anti-texting law.  The new law allows police to charge anyone caught text messaging while operating a vehicle with a primary offense and a $50 fine. 

As with most public health problems, we will need a combination of these strategies (i.e., individual education, social norm changes, policy/law changes, technological solutions, etc) to see a reduction in injuries and deaths.

What do you think?

• How can we balance the benefits and challenges of mobile technology for public health?
• Do you think the "E-Lane" in Philadelphia is an effective strategy for initiating dialogue around distracted drivers and pedestrians?
• In addition to the strategies listed above, what can public health and the public do to reduce injuries and deaths from distracted drivers and pedestrians?

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?

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)

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

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

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

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

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?"

Will New Ads in Georgia "Stop Childhood Obesity" or Increase Stigma and Bullying?

On Friday's Today show, there was an interesting analysis of a new campaign from the Georgia Child Health Alliance (GCHA) aimed at reducing childhood obesity. According to the GCHA website, the Warning: Stop Childhood Obesity media campaign "is part of a large-scale public awareness campaign designed to educate Georgians on the childhood obesity epidemic facing our state. Backed by market research, the campaign’s warning messages about obesity are developed to reach parents and children using communication vehicles such as billboards, television, radio and more".

From the Today show segment (which featured the campaign's Director, a child actor featured in the ads, and a child psychologist) we learned that this media campaign is part one of a three part campaign. The three parts were briefly outlined:

1- Raise awareness about childhood obesity; letting kids voice their struggle in their own words.
2- "Activate"- focus on healthy eating and activity
3- Focus on real solutions

While the GCHA outlines their strategic mission for this campaign, they are hearing some major objections to their approach and it continues to grab national headlines. The major concerns voiced by objectors such as Rebecca Puhl (a weight discrimination expert from Yale University), are that the ads will increase stigma for overweight kids (which could increase their experience of bullying) and that the ads will be ineffective due to their fear-based approach. In my review of the ads, I have mixed (mostly negative) feelings about their development and implementation:

• Strike One: The goal of this campaign is listed as "raising awareness". These may be my two least favorite terms in all of public health. "Raising awareness" is too vague and does not lend itself to being evaluated. In actuality, campaign developers usually want to "increase knowledge" or "change perceptions" or "change behavior" (e.g., calling the 800 number on the screen). These are all things which can actually be measured and should be stated more clearly.

• Strike Two: When the Today show asked the Campaign director about the audience for these ads, he replied "parents, kids, and educators". Again, this is way too vague. Your message and call to action (i.e., what you want the viewer to do after watching the ad) would be completely different for each of those audiences. For example, you may want educators to reach out to the parents of overweight kids in their classes or you may want kids to tell an adult if they are being bullied about their weight. These messages need to be tailored to each audience.
  

• Strike Three: These ads definitely fall into the "fear-based" category. As you watch them, the ads read "WARNING" in bold red letters and you hear a "boom" (kinda like on "Law & Order) as the statistics run across the screen. As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, fear-based approaches have been found to be ineffective in other areas of prevention (e.g., alcohol and other drugs).

• In terms of redeeming factors, it does seem that the campaign was developed using formative research which included focus groups with overweight kids. The results of these focus groups were used to develop the dialogue read by child actors in the ads so that it would be "in their words". If kids are the audience for these ads, then the age appropriate priorities and dialogue (with the inclusion of child actors) is positive. From health behavior theory (e.g., Social Learning Theory), we know that kids will respond better if they relate to those in the ads.
  

Of course, it is unclear if they also focus group tested the ads and billboards after initial development, before they were rolled out. It is also unclear how they are being evaluated and what the ultimate goals are (beyond "increased awareness"). I'll be interested to see parts two and three rolled out and hope to include follow up thoughts here on Pop Health.

In Honor of World AIDS Day: Can Celebrity "Digital Deaths" Prevent Real Deaths from HIV/AIDS?

Kim Kardashian, Ryan Seacrest, and Lady Gaga are all dead! No, not really...but they are considered "Digitally Dead" for today- World AIDS Day (December 1st). These celebrities and many more joined forces with a charity co-founded by singer Alicia Keys called Keep a Child Alive. The charity provides treatment, love, and support to families affected by HIV/AIDS.

For today's campaign, celebs were pictured in coffins, featured in "last video testaments", and pledging to stay digitally silent on their social media accounts (i.e., on Facebook and Twitter) until their lives were "bought back" by donors reaching a minimum of one million dollars total. Although the images of celebs in coffins were a little creepy, Keep a Child Alive co-founder Leigh Blake says:

"We're trying to sort of make the remark: Why do we care so much about the death of one celebrity as opposed to millions and millions of people dying in the place that we're all from? Its about love and respect and human dignity."

It is an interesting concept for a health communication/advocacy campaign. Usually when campaigns advocate via social media, it is done by bombarding their followers with messages and links to donate or sign up to assist the cause. Here, the campaign is trying to motivate donors by having an ABSENCE of the celebrities' voices. How powerful is that absence? Will the public really miss reading celebs tweets and facebook status updates? Apparently so. As of tonight on Twitter, Kim Kardashian had 5,467,107 followers and Ryan Seacrest had 3,683,658 followers. So whether we like it or not, the voices (and silences) of these celebrities matter in our communities.

While I do think the campaign will have large reach, I will say that their coffin posters left room for improvement. I've analyzed health communication campaigns on this blog before, and the key is always- "What is the cue to action? Does the audience know what they are supposed to do after seeing the poster/brochure/PSA?" Well- when I first saw this poster of Kim Kardashian, I had no idea what it was about. I had to Google and read the narrative about the World AIDS Day campaign for Keep A Child Alive. For this blog post, I had to blow the image up over 100% to read the text on the bottom of the poster. It reads,

"Kim sacrificed her digital life to give real life to millions of others affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa and India. That means no more Facebook or Twitter until we buy her life back". Then the charity website and text number were provided to accept donations. In future campaigns, they would want that text to be much bigger. It should not take the audience several minutes, a Google search, and a magnifying glass to figure out what they are supposed to do to help poor Kim get out of that coffin.

Overall, I give this campaign a B+ for creativity in using the "absence" of social media messages and targeting celebrities with a huge following and reach to potential donors.

"Popular Media Helps Establish the Public Health Agenda" That's What I Said.

"Popular media helps establish the public health agenda". I just read this line in a new article from the March 2010 edition of Preventing Chronic Disease...I thought- that's what I've been talking about. I knew public health and pop culture went hand in hand!
This particular research project was inspired by the CDC/Alzheimer's Association Initiative: National Public Health Action Plan to Promote and Protect Brain Health. The authors conducted a content analysis of the four most circulated Women's magazines (Good Housekeeping, Ladies Home Journal, Women's Day, Family Circle) and Men's magazines (Men's Health, GQ, Men's Journal, Esquire). They conducted a content analysis to see how the magazines described the three strategies correlated with healthy cognitive function (physical activity, healthy diet, and social involvement).
I will say that I was slightly disappointed that there was almost no discussion of the differences in how these issues are presented in Women's vs. Men's magazines. It is always interesting to see how public health issues are marketed differently based on gender. For example, I was fascinated in graduate school to see how cigarettes and smoking have been presented over the years. For example, Virginia Slims cigarettes were advertised in Women's Magazines with slogans like "You've come a long way baby". The products were visibly thin and the slogans focused on being free and empowered.
This content analysis was also interesting however, in that it identified what strategies were being talked about. They found that both types of magazines were focusing on prevention vs. treatment (yay!) Women's articles tended to be longer and were were likely to include contact information (for websites/researchers). It seems the magazines have done their research that women are more likely to seek help for a health issue. They also found that most articles focused on healthy diet, while increasing social involvement was almost never discussed. The authors do not speculate as to why social involvement was not presented. I find that interesting (and a shame) since social support/connection is also a protective factor for other health issues (e.g., suicide).
I think this type of research has great implications for other public health work. How often are pop media channels evaluated for the content/accuracy of their public health messages? How can the evaluation of those channels/messages inform the public health agenda? My message to MPH students: "Study that qualitative analysis textbook!" We're going to be needing researchers that can analyze the content of commercials, magazines, social networking sites...it sounds like a fun job!

If you'd like to check out the article I cited above:
Friedman et al. Cognitive Health Messages in Popular Women's and Men's Magazines, 2006-2007. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010: 7(2).