(Dis)Connected: MTV Explores the Impact of Digital Drama on the Health and Safety of Young People

On Sunday October 10, 2011, MTV will premiere "(Dis)Connected". The movie will explore the experiences of four young people. They have never met in-person, but their lives collide online and are forever changed by their digital interactions.

The film supports the network's "A Thin Line" campaign which empowers youth to stand up against digital abuse of all kinds (e.g., bullying, discrimination, etc).

The movie is inspired (in part) by the tragic death of Abraham Biggs in 2008. Biggs, a 19-year old college student, live streamed his suicide on the internet, with some users egging him on and some trying to talk him out of it.

(Dis)Connected supports an ongoing discussion in public health regarding the question: "Does technology help us or hurt us when it comes to issues such as bullying or suicide?" The answer is not clear. There are examples on each side. One year ago today, I wrote the post "Bullying: Is Technology Helping Us or Hurting Us?" The post was inspired by the dialogue of how technology may have contributed to the suicide of Tyler Clementi but also how it was being used in a positive way to prevent bullying in the aftermath (e.g., the "It Gets Better" project).

On her blog "Promoting Hope, Preventing Suicide", Elana Premack Sandler writes about research and advice for preventing teen and adult suicide. Just in the past year, she has extensively explored the issue of technology/social media and its impact on suicide prevention. Some example posts include: Facebook Support Networks (September 21); YouTube Prevents Suicide? (May 4); and Promoting Hope Through Social Media (April 13).

Let's all check out (Dis)Connected on October 10 and let the dialogue continue.

If you or someone you know is in crisis, please call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK or visit their website here.

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!