Google Continues to Use its Power for Public Health Good

Yesterday, Google announced its new surveillance system for Dengue Fever. Dengue Fever is a disease caused by four related viruses spread by a particular species of mosquito. It can cause high fever, rash, muscle and joint pain, and in severe cases- bleeding, a sudden drop in blood pressure (shock) and death. Millions of cases of Dengue infection occur worldwide each year. Most often, dengue fever occurs in urban areas of tropical and subtropical regions.

The system is similar to that which was previously released as their Google Flu Trends program. These systems use search queries within Google (for example those that enter the disease's name and/or symptoms) to identify trends. The Dengue system also takes advantage of a new feature called Google Correlate, which shows previously unknown correlations between search terms. These correlations allow researchers to model real world behaviors by examining internet search trends. For those who may be skeptical of this model, you should check out a publication (co-authored by Google and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-CDC) in the 2009 Nature Journal . The article reports that "because relative frequencies of certain queries were highly correlated with the percentage of physician visits in which a patient presents with influenza-like symptoms, we can accurately estimate the current level of weekly influenza activity in each region of the United States, with a reporting lag of about one day."

This is a pretty exciting addition to public health surveillance (where the goal is systematic, ongoing, data collection that is used to monitor trends, identify priorities, direct resources, identify emerging hazards, and evaluate interventions).

This is not the first time that Google has jumped into the public health field with an impressive contribution. In 2010, Google searches related to suicide started appearing with a message guiding users to the toll-free number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. The number is 1-800-273-8255. Triggered by searches such as "I want to die" or "ways to commit suicide," the number is listed next to an icon of a red telephone, at the top of the search results.

The addition of the Lifeline number came shortly after (at the suggestion of a Google user), the company started displaying the hotline for the American Association of Poison Control Centers after searches for "poison emergency."

These cases of Google's work in public health are great examples of effective health communication and public health principles:

• Identifying the primary channels through which your audience searches for health information (more and more are utilizing the internet) and delivering accurate and effective information and/or interventions via those channels.

• Maximizing data driven surveillance systems- using existing data (e.g., internet searches) to identify public health trends.

• Building strong partnerships (as evidenced by the publication by Google and CDC) CDC has partnered with a company with specific expertise and resources in an area that can be invaluable to their work.
  

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.

From The West Wing to the National Health Care Debate

Anyone who knows me well knows that "The American President" is one of my favorite movies. If it is a favorite of yours as well, you may recognize that the actress who plays Press Secretary Robin McCall also plays National Security Advisor Dr. Nancy McNally in "The West Wing". The actress is Anna Deavere Smith.

This week in my "Qualitative Research Methods in Community Health" class, we discussed ethnography. Specifically we discussed Ms. Smith's work as an example of performance ethnography. For over a decade, she has interviewed people across the country and used the "data" to develop a one-woman show. Her newest play is called "Let Me Down Easy" and its goal is to show the human side of the national health care debate. I highly recommend viewing the 10-minute excerpt and interview here.

I'm so sorry that I missed her play when it came to Philadelphia earlier this year because I think it is an amazing example of the richness of data collected using qualitative methods. It is often argued that qualitative methods are too "soft" and limited in view. I've heard them described as "basically just journalism". However, I would argue that qualitative methods are essential to the success of public health.

Instead of surveys and databases, these methods collect data via interview, discussion, and observation. The research is meant to discover the complex relationship between personal and social meaning, individual and cultural practices, and the material environment or context. In contrast to what we have learned since grade school science about the scientific method and generalizability of findings- here the focus is on obtaining a deeper understanding of a population or phenomenon.

Ms. Smith conducted over 300 interviews for "Let Me Down Easy" and ultimately condensed her findings to show the experience of contemporary health care through the eyes of 20 individuals. These kinds of stories are incredibly powerful in public health. They open our eyes to challenges that we never would have found via survey...because we wouldn't have known to ask the right questions. They allow us to share stories with policymakers so they can see the impact of their decisions beyond the sterile statistics often cited. They can allow us to explore experiences or illnesses that occur in too small a population to survey.

Ideally, quantitative and qualitative methods should be used together to create the strongest public health research design possible. It should not be us vs. them...but instead a joint effort. I encourage us all to see the human side of health care reform when Ms. Smith's play airs on PBS "Great Performances" next season.

A Pop Health Book Review of "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks"

This book is not brand new; it has been out for about a year. However, it continues to pick up momentum and be read by book clubs across the country. Therefore, after it was recommended to me by my mother-in-law, I thought it would be perfect for a Pop Health Book Review.

As someone who works in public health, I collaborate with our University's Institutional Review Board (IRB) on a daily basis to ensure the safety of our research (for the good of our research team, funder, and participants). And even though I know and understand the importance of the collaboration, it can still feel like a burden to address and document each question that is asked by our IRB (I know many of you would agree!) I see the students I work with roll their eyes and sigh when they have to take the IRB and HIPAA trainings. HIPAA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 Privacy and Security Rules. The students say, "Yeah...we already know this stuff".

However, this book takes what you "already know" and puts a face on it. It reminds you that it wasn't long ago that people (especially vulnerable people) were experimented on and/or used for research without their consent. Often with sad and deadly outcomes.

Rebecca Skloot, an award-winning science writer, takes the reader on her personal journey (lasting over a decade) to learn about the woman behind HeLa cells. The woman's name was Henrietta Lacks. The original cells were taken from her cervix shortly after she was diagnosed with cancer and before her death. HeLa cells have been vital for many scientific advances, including the development of the polio vaccine.

Henrietta's story, pieced together through more than a thousand hours of interviews conducted by Rebecca, touches on the most essential and controversial aspects of public health and research:

1. Treatment/Research on Vulnerable Populations:

• Henrietta Lacks was a poor Southern tobacco farmer, seeking medical care from Johns Hopkins "colored" ward in the early 1950s. A sample of her tumor was taken and given to researchers without her consent. She was treated with radiation without a discussion about the side effects. Henrietta had no idea the radiation would cause her to be infertile. The hospital convinced her husband David to agree to an autopsy (after he already refused) by saying that the exam "could help his children one day". The autopsy results were later given to a writer who published all the details in his book.

• It is no wonder that the IRB now requires specific training and attention to address research that focuses on vulnerable populations. These include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, prisoners, children, and other special classes of individuals such as minorities and those that are mentally ill.

• It is no wonder that it can be incredibly difficult to recruit members of these vulnerable groups to participate in research, even today! Henrietta's family spoke of their fears of being snatched off the streets around Johns Hopkins by doctors wanting to experiment on them. Rebecca found research that tales of "night doctors" had filled black oral history since the 1800s. These doctors would kidnap black people for research.

2. Ethical Issues

• This book examines the ethical issues of sharing human tissue. Consent to share human tissue (e.g., those you have "discarded"after a blood test or biopsy), is not the same as consenting to participate in research. Often consent is not required.

• But do researchers and doctors have an ethical responsibility to disclose to the patient if (1) their cells/tissues are unique and valuable in some way, (2) the researcher or doctor has a financial interest in their tissue, (3) the patient's tissue will be used in any way that is contrary to their beliefs?

3. Informed Consent

• Times have certainly changed since 1951 when Henrietta Lacks was subjected to tests and procedures without giving informed consent. Unfortunately, it took about 50 years to get there. Her husband and children were still left in the dark regarding the purpose of blood tests in the years after her death. Scientists wanted to map their genes. The family thought they were being tested for cancer. They waited years for results that never came.

• Most of Henrietta's family only completed school until their early-mid teenage years. Even when the doctors explained parts of procedures, it was not at a level or in a way that was familiar to them.

• This book emphasizes the importance of being "informed" in the consent process. If the participants don't understand, their verbal or written consent means nothing.

All of these important issues are discussed with beautiful storytelling by Henrietta's family and Rebecca's careful research. It is a must read, especially for my fellow science and public health friends out there.

You'll find yourself cheering for Henrietta's daughter Deborah and her siblings, who have all endured more than their share of suffering. And probably most important, you'll find yourself making a pact to never sigh when it is time to complete the annual IRB training.

The Role of Social Media in Emergency Preparedness and Recovery

Last month I attended a presentation about a research study which evaluated the content of State-level emergency preparedness websites. The reviewers were looking for the presence of essential components such as clear contact information and links to federal emergency preparedness resources. I raised my hand and asked, "Are you evaluating these websites/organizations for a social media presence?" I used the example of the most recent Philadelphia "emergency" I encountered, 15 inches of snow. I did not go onto the city's emergency management website for information. I follow NBCPhiladelphia and SEPTA (the city's mass transit system) on Twitter. So I looked at my phone to find out what offices were closed and which buses/trains were running or cancelled. As always the key question remains, how does your target population get their information? What systems will still be working in an emergency (e.g., what if you lose electricity or internet?)

Since last Friday, we have all been watching the sad and heartwrenching images from the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. And you may wonder, with so much of the country affected, how will people make contact with their loved ones and how will the government get critical information out quickly? This morning, Mashable ran an article called, "Social Media Plays Vital Role in Reconnecting Japan Quake Victims with Loved Ones". While the earthquake knocked out electricity, the internet remained largely intact. The US Embassy in Tokyo is trying to take advantage of this fact and is encouraging Americans in Japan to contact their loved ones via text message and social media (i.e., Facebook and Twitter). Facebook and Twitter analytics from the day of earthquake show incredibly high usage.

A recent post on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) blog discusses how social media is being considered as a key element in emergency preparedness. FEMA administrator Craig Fugate discusses a January 2011 planning meeting in which he met with the founder of Craigslist and editors from Wired, Twitter, Apple, and Facebook. He reports that they discussed:

• "The need to provide information to the public as data feeds, because they are a key member of our emergency management team"
• "The importance of referring to people impacted by a disaster as survivors and utilizing them as a resource"
• "The importance of providing good customer service"
• "How [emergency managers], need to stop trying to have the public fit into our way of doing things and receiving information, but that we should fit the way the public gets, receives and seeks out information"

It is great to hear that emergency managers are identifying social media as a powerful tool and planning how best to take advantage of it during an emergency.

Other online resources for making connections after a tragedy include:

Google Person Finder : This google service is used in the aftermath of such tragedies and allows users to click, "I am looking for someone" or "I have information about someone".

Red Cross Family Links: The purpose of this website is to help people get connected after being separated by disaster or conflict. Currently, there are links for Japan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Nepal, Iraq, and Somalia.

HHS and Data and Technology, Oh My!!

Last week I had the pleasure of attending a talk called, "Unleashing the Power of Open Data to Improve Health" organized by The College of Physicians of Philadelphia-section on Public Health and Preventative Medicine. The speaker was Todd Park, the Chief Technology Officer for the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). I have to admit, I was expecting something a little dry (having received my fair share of power point overload at government sponsored presentations). Wow- was I surprised to find Mr. Park on a wireless microphone running up and down the aisles engaging members of the audience!

The presentation focused on how HHS is living up to President Obama's "Open Government Initiative", which promises to have a "system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration". In terms of health data, Mr. Park said let's stop making people find data. Instead, let's "make data find people". In order to develop channels to help data find us, HHS has been engaging leaders from many areas of popular social media and technology (e.g., YouTube and Smart Phone application development). The government team has been sending the message "the data is yours...let's see what you do with it". In order to get the creative juices flowing, HHS has held and continues to hold "Health 2.0 Developer Challenges". The most current being the "Go Viral Collegiate Challenge" which calls on multidisciplinary teams from colleges and universities to develop a web or mobile application to address a significant health problem facing their communities.

Check out some examples of data applications produced through the use of open government health data:

• Community Clash: An online card game that engages you in a discovery of your community's health and well-being status and let's you see how it compares to other communities in a head-to-head clash. (*Warning- apparently this game is incredibly addicting!)
  

• Asthmapolis: A device that uses global positioning satellite technology (GPS) to determine the time and location when an asthma inhaler is used. The data is then stored on a server. The user can use this device to track asthma symptoms, triggers, and medication use- which could lead to an identification of environmental or other factors which improve/worsen their condition.

In addition to these challenges, HHS has also launched multiple websites to assist with the dissemination of this open health data. For example, HealthData.Gov and HealthIndicators.Gov. While this is all fabulous (and I really enjoyed looking at the challenge applications), how is this initiative being evaluated? Is the ultimate goal just about numbers? Does HHS just want to increase the number of people/organizations that are using health data? Do they just want to increase the number/types of data sources they can make available? Or is there some evaluation of the quality and accuracy of what is being produced? The challenge application website is sure to point out that the applications were not produced with federal money and therefore the government does not endorse them. But are they somehow creating an inventory of the applications and evaluating their effectiveness? Do we know which ones are actually increasing knowledge and changing behavior? Are we learning from the ones that do not? I applaud all the excitement around this initiative, but as always- I'm interested in seeing the outcomes. How will this initiative, which "unleashes the power of open data" actually improve health"?

Michelle Williams is Working to Reduce Barriers to Exercise for Single Moms

As I got my hair cut on Friday, I paged through the February 2011 issue of Marie Claire Magazine. As a major "Dawson's Creek" fan in the 90s, I am always excited to read about the old cast. What a pleasure to read the interview with February's cover girl- Michelle Williams.

As always, she was asked the question about how she coped with the death of her ex-fiance Heath Ledger. This time she spoke about the practice of yoga and how it helped her work through the grief.

The interview introduced us to a project which Michelle helped create called The "Yoga for Single Moms"Project. The project pilot is in Boston and seeks to effectively address key barriers to exercise for single mothers:

1. Expense (of a gym or yoga studio)

2. Childcare

3. Social Support

Michelle tells the magazine, "The idea behind the program is that if you can clear the time, we do the rest. It provides childcare while the mum is in the yoga class, and it's all free."

I'll be watching to see how they evaluate the program and how/if it rolls out nationally. But it appears to be off to a good start as it goes beyond simply educating women about exercise and telling them that they should. The program seeks to work for a single mom's environment, schedule, and unique challenges. Great job Michelle.