Let's Talk Safety Climate and the Airlines: "Welcome Aboard"

I spent the past few weeks out on vacation in the beautiful Pacific Northwest (which explains my brief absence from Pop Health). While the trip was wonderful, it is quite nice to be back on the blog. And in fact, my trip provided me with the inspiration for this post. On my return flight home, I encountered an array of travel nightmares (delays, mechanical problems, cancelled flights, lost luggage). While many people may just consider these as an inconvenience, they also got me thinking about my safety. As we sat at the gate and waited for test after test, my husband assured me that they wouldn't put us on the plane if it wasn't safe. However, I wondered aloud if that was true. With the pressure for the airlines to have better on-time statistics and less angry customers, can we be put on a plane that is unsafe? My experience with USAirways, the similar experiences that I read about on Twitter, and the information I found regarding their dysfunctional relationship with their Pilots Association got me interested in the safety climate of the airline industry.

Everyday we encounter airline advertising that hopes to recruit our business by highlighting a company's high standards for safety, comfort, reasonable prices, and customer service. The ads also try to capitalize on things that we value, for example- freedom. Some memorable slogans include, "You are now free to move about the country" (Southwest); "We love to fly and it shows" (Delta); "Come fly the friendly skies" (United). While these slogans are catchy and convincing, they represent the "espoused values" of the airlines. Espoused values are values and norms stated by the organization. They can often be found in companies' strategic plans, goals, and/or taglines. For example, USAirways has an initiative called "Customers First" which strives to address key service elements that affect their customers.

In addition to espoused values, we also find "enacted values"; these are the norms that are actually exhibited by employees. These values may or may not be in line with the espoused values. That is why even though "Customers First" can be an espoused value, you can still end up bumped off a flight and sleeping in the airport because the rude gate agent told you there was no flight availability. In order to hear about other customers experiences with enacted values, I turned to Twitter and was amazed by what I saw. There were hundreds of comments to or about @usairways that were identical to mine- lots of mechanical failures ending in flight cancellations and luggage that was lost for days. I understand Twitter may be skewed towards the negative because people are less likely to tweet about the on-time departures...however, if you look at another airline (e.g., @southwestair) you see almost nothing about mechanical problems.

A less biased way to learn about employees' values and their level of congruence with the organization executives, is to hear from them directly. Just a few weeks ago, the US Airline Pilot Association- USAPA (the union that represents USAirways pilots), posted on their website to alert customers to the pressure they are receiving from USAirways executives to fly under unsafe conditions. On June 16, 2011, a pilot with 30-years of experience was escorted from the airport after she refused to fly a plane overseas after it failed multiple safety checks. A second group of pilots refused to fly the plane as well. This is not the first time that USAPA has spoken out against the executives. In 2008, they posted a customer alert in USA Today because they were being pressured to fly with less fuel in order to save money.

The examination and measurement of espoused/enacted values and their connection to safety outcomes (e.g., occupational injuries) is the exciting field of safety climate research. The term "safety climate" was coined in 1980 by Dr. Dov Zohar and has been prevalent in the Industrial and Organizational Psychology literature before making its way into the public health literature. For those interested, the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention recently dedicated an issue to safety climate and occupational health.

Safety climate research has been used to assess the climate of a variety of industries (e.g., healthcare). I propose that it is essential for examining the values within individual airlines and their connection to safety outcomes (e.g., worker injuries, passenger injuries, mechanical failures, near-misses, etc). The discrepancy discussed above between employee and company values can become a very dangerous combination.

Kim Kardashian is a Spokesperson (Again) for a Public Health Issue...Will the Public Buy In This Time?

This afternoon I saw a tweet from Kim Kardashian that read "Recognizing Ovarian Cancer is the 1st step in fighting Ovarian Cancer- please watch and share this video". So my first thought was- "I wonder if this campaign will be more successful than her last?" As you may remember, in December 2010 I blogged about Kim and other celebrities that staged their digital deaths in order to raise money for World AIDS Day. In addition to my concerns about the campaign's design (which included a less than clear cue to action for the audience), its "success" was also questionable because it ended up taking much longer than intended to reach their 1 million dollar goal. So I was quite intrigued to view Kim's newest PSA on YouTube.

The event called "Super Saturday Live" is a collaboration between QVC and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (OCRF). On Saturday, July 30, 2011- designer clothes sold on QVC will be 50% off and the net proceeds will be given to OCRF. The PSA informs the audience that this money is necessary because there is currently no good early detection test for ovarian cancer.

I was pleasantly surprised by the PSA. It didn't feel too long (94 seconds). It kept my interest with minimal and appropriate statistics. For example, instead of scaring the audience, the music was upbeat and focused on the positive- a 92% 5-year survival rate when the cancer is detected early. The PSA also had information presented through both audio and visual channels. Finally (and most importantly)- as an audience member, I knew exactly what I was supposed to do. The cue to action was clear. I was to share the video- "like" it, post it, forward it. And finally, I should tweet about #supersaturday. This way the "trend" can get ahead of ovarian cancer.

In addition to the look and feel of the PSA, I think it is important to discuss the strength and popularity of the chosen spokesperson. Just as I mentioned in December, Kim Kardashian is an obvious choice if you are looking for a huge reach. As of tonight, she had 8,380,553 followers on twitter. The PSA already had 5,965 views on YouTube. However, I have my concerns about her genuine interest in this public health issue. Does she have a personal connection or does she just jump on the bandwagon (like in December) for any way to promote her "brand"? I ask because I have concerns due to how she behaves on her E! show- Keeping Up with the Kardashians. For example, just a few weeks ago on the show, Kim had her butt x-rayed to "prove to the media" that it was real (without butt implants). I watched this episode while on the elliptical machine at the gym and felt enraged. First of all, what type of terrible physician allows his time and resources to be taken up with such nonsense? Also, what type of terrible physician agrees to expose Kim, his patient, to needless radiation to help her prove this point? And how much extra time does she (and her sisters) have on their hands to participate in this silly trip to the doctor? If I were the Executive Director of OCRF, even with her extensive popularity, I doubt that I would choose her for a spokesperson.

So let's all check out Twitter on Saturday, July 30th...let's see if #supersaturday is trending and if Kim's "quantity" of followers can help balance out her sometimes lack of "quality" as a spokesperson.

Where Are the Helmets in the Home Run Derby?

Last night I returned home from a lovely dinner with my injury prevention colleagues to a sight that really caught me by surprise. My husband was watching the Major League Baseball (MLB) Home Run Derby. I tuned in for a moment before turning to him and asking, "Why aren't they wearing helmets?" I think we are all accustomed to seeing players in their batting helmets, so this looked strange to me- especially in contrast to the catcher, who was dressed in full protective gear. My husband informed me that helmets are not necessary because the pitches are much slower. However- I would disagree (and this is not the first time I have critiqued professional sports and their commitment to protecting players from head injuries).

First of all, concussions (which we must remember are a traumatic brain injury!) do not only occur when the ball is traveling 100 MPH. Therefore, a slower pitch does not equal safety. The catcher still wore full protective gear. The pitcher stood behind protective netting. So on some level it is acknowledged that hazards still exist at the Home Run Derby.

In addition, concussions (or more serious injuries) can happen even when you are not the batter. Therefore, helmets protect you when you are on deck, warming up, or coaching from the sidelines. Home Run Derby participants are still at risk for injury when they are not at bat. This is a lesson that many in baseball know far too well. In 2007, a minor league first base coach was killed when he was hit in the head with a line drive. This tragic accident resulted in a change in policy regarding required head protection for first and third base coaches.

Speaking of policy, I find it strange that their batting helmet practices vary based on the speed of the pitch. This is not an acceptable strategy in other areas of injury prevention, so why is that the strategy here? We don't tell people to only wear seatbelts if they are planning to drive faster than 40 MPH. We don't tell people to only avoid texting and driving if they are on the highway. The MLB seems to be accepting a high level of risk for their players in this context. This is especially surprising since MLB and the MLB Players Association have taken steps to prioritize safety regarding head injuries. They recently implemented a universal concussion policy (which went into effect on Opening Day 2011). The new policy dictates both how concussions are initially treated and when player/umpires are allowed to return to play. The most substantial change is the creation of a 7-day disabled list to allow players an appropriate amount of time to heal after a concussion. They are also introducing reinforced helmets that can withstand 100 MPH fastballs.

While the safety of the players is paramount, this discussion is also important because MLB players are role models. Therefore, it is important that they model acceptance and proper usage of personal protective equipment. If you looked at the stadium crowd at the Derby (and the lucky few invited to catch balls in the outfield), it was mostly kids. If the MLB and the players do not provide leadership on safety policies and equipment, it could have larger public health effects on the audiences that model their behavior (so don't get me started on the chewing tobacco issue).

Therefore, I strongly encourage MLB to review their policies regarding personal protective equipment and the grey "safe" areas they have identified, like the Home Run Derby. It appears to be a relaxed, fun event during the all-star break but in reality, they are unnecessarily putting the safety of their players at risk.

"Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk": How Soon is too Soon to Find the Teachable Moment in the Death of Ryan Dunn?

"Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Drunk". A memorable tag line from the 1990s, found in many drunk driving prevention public service announcements (PSAs).

Early Monday morning, June 20, 2011, Ryan Dunn and a passenger were killed in a car accident in Pennsylvania. Ryan appeared in all three seasons of "Jackass" on MTV, as well as their movies.

Shortly after the news of Ryan's death broke (along with preliminary reports of speeding and photos of him drinking at the bar hours before the accident), Roger Ebert tweeted "Friends Don't Let Jackasses Drink and Drive". Although Roger did not "intend to be cruel"- he "intended to be true", there was a lot of backlash to his play on the old PSA tagline. Ryan's friends and colleagues from "Jackass" tweeted their anger in response and popular celebrity blogger Perez Hilton posted that Roger responded insensitively to Ryan's death. All felt that it was too soon to hold Ryan up as an example of the dangers of drinking and driving.

So the question I pose is: How soon is too soon to capitalize on a "teachable moment"?

Teachable moments are important in public health. They let us identify a time when our audiences will be more open to prevention education/intervention because they will see its relevance to their lives. Often the identification and sustainability of teachable moments are supported by media reports on the health/lives of celebrities.

As this week has moved along, more information has been released about the accident that killed Ryan Dunn and his passenger. His alcohol level was approximately twice the legal limit in Pennsylvania (0.196%) and he was traveling at a very high rate of speed (estimated at 132-140 mph) at the time of collision. Therefore, there is clearly a lesson to be learned here- about speeding and about drinking and driving. But much of these lessons our audience already knows. If you drink and drive- you could die (and/or kill someone else). If you speed- you could die (and/or kill someone else).

So maybe the lessons have to be broader. Apparently Ryan had a history of speeding and driving under the influence. These factors put him at risk. What could he, his friends, his family, the courts, the bar done to prevent this tragedy? What about the bystanders? His friends at the bar...employees at the bar...his friend who ultimately got into the car...could someone have stopped him from driving? What are the lessons you find in this story and how/when should they be communicated?

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.