Tag Archives: research and evaluation

Reading Up On Social Determinants of Health

October may be Breast Cancer Awareness Month, but a number of articles came out last week focusing on social determinants of health. The phrase “social determinants of health” refers to health where we live, learn, work, play (and pray). In short, Health with a capital H.

U.S. Life Expectancy Rises, Health Disparities Increase

Last week, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) shared its review of Healthy People 2010. The report shared that as a Nation, we had met or were moving toward meeting, 71% of the disease prevention and health promotion objectives we set in 2000.

Despite this, the data also underscored the need for improvement in a number of critical areas, including health disparities and obesity rates. These two issues, as well as other key indicators of health, are top priorities of Healthy People 2020 (disclaimer: client).

“…Addressing health disparities continues to be our greatest challenge,” said Dr. Edward Sondik, Ph.D., director of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). “…All Americans should be concerned that disparities among people from socially, economically or environmentally disadvantaged backgrounds have generally remained unchanged.”

*****

Examining a 40-Year Spread in Life Expectancy Abroad

The October issue of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Bulletin is packed full of information on social determinants of health–including examples of work in progress and insights gained from around the world.

“Yes, there is a greater than 40-year spread in life expectancy among countries and dramatic social gradients in health within countries,” said Michael Marmot of University College London in his editorial. “But the evidence suggests that we can make great progress towards closing the health gap by improving, as the [World Health Organization’s Commission on Social Determinants of Health] put it, the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age.”

The bulletin includes another editorial that highlights potential solutions to improving the social determinants of health, as well as a number of research articles and relevant news.

*****

An Agenda for Fighting Disparities

What are the Occupy Wall Street protests all about? Author Geoff Livingston describes its as a “groundswell of economic injustice.” Playing a role behind the scenes in economic and social injustice are social determinants of health and health disparities. Perhaps it’s time to bring them to the forefront.

The October issue of Health Affairs presents an agenda on fighting disparities. In it, Dr. Howard Koh, Assistant Secretary for HHS, discusses a key part of this agenda, HHS’ National Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. Analysis and commentary on how health reform may impact health disparities is also provided. What might be most surprising is that one research study included in the issue, shares that only 59% of Americans are even aware that health disparities exist!

*****

No Black-White Health Gap in Canada Says Study

Meanwhile, our friends in Canada may be one step ahead. According to a recent study and as reported in BET, “blacks are equally healthy as their white counterparts.” BET went on to say:

“Thomas A. LaVeist, a co-author of the study and director of the Hopkins Center for Health Disparities Solutions in Baltimore says that he believes America’s history of treating Blacks as second-class citizens plays a large role in the Black-white health disparity that exists in the U.S.”

As a heads up, LaVeist also cautions taking the results at their surface as the the results could have significant limitations because the survey included just 729 Blacks, compared with more than 280,000 whites reported BET.

*****

Health is About More Than Healthcare

LaVeist also published another study about how place–and not necessarily race–contributes to  health disparities. The study, based on a neighborhood in Baltimore composed equally of whites and blacks, found that within the integrated community, health disparities all but disappear. This suggests that as a Nation, we’ve been looking for answers on how to improve health the wrong way. Instead, we should be looking at what’s going on in certain communities that what’s going on within certain populations. As quoted in the Atlantic:

“Solutions to health disparities are likely to be found in broader societal policy and policy that is not necessarily what we would think of as health policy,” LaVeist says. “It’s housing policy, zoning policy, it’s policy that shapes the characteristics of communities.”

*****

flickr credit: woodleywonderworks

Facebook, Health and the Pursuit of Happiness

Facebook has become just about as integrated into American culture as apple pie. We all know apple pie tastes amazing–but when taken to the extreme and eaten on a consistent basis, it’s not exactly the healthiest food. This applies to Facebook as well. Facebook can offer a number of benefits–but it also has some potential drawbacks. And despite our shared love for Facebook, it’s important to be aware of its possible drawbacks. This post looks at a number of different research studies published in the past year that include some interesting findings.

Does Facebook help us feel more connected—or alone?

A recent set of studies found a paradox in Facebook psychology. The studies looked to answer the question: Does using Facebook help us feel more connected, or not? The results may surprise you.

The research was actually conducted through four different yet connected studies. The first study found that frequent Facebook usage relates to both increased connection–as well as increased feelings of disconnection. The second study found that disconnection motivates greater Facebook usage as a coping strategy as greater usage leads to greater connection (yes, this seems odd given the first study’s results).

The third study deprived participants of Facebook use for 48 hours. While feelings of connection decreased, the feeling of disconnection was unaffected. However, those who felt more disconnected actually engaged in increased Facebook use during a second 48-hour period.

In the fourth study, participants set a goal to reduce their use of Facebook. In setting this goal and working to achieve it, greater disconnection was felt. Those that had this feeling performed worse in achieving their goal.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Who has the best self esteem of them all?

Another study conducted by researchers at Cornell found that Facebook usage actually leads to increased self-esteem. “Facebook can show a positive version of ourselves,” associate professor Jeffrey Hancock told CNN. “We’re not saying that it’s a deceptive version of self, but it’s a positive one.”

Hancock is the co-author of a report titled, “Mirror, Mirror On My Facebook Wall: Effects of Exposure to Facebook on Self-Esteem” that was published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. The study put 63 students in a university computer lab. Some computers were turned off with a mirror in front of it—while others were turned on showing the student’s Facebook page.

For three minutes, participants either stared at themselves in a mirror or reviewed their Facebook profile. When time was up, students were given a questionnaire to measure their self-esteem. The students who had been reviewing their Facebook profile gave more positive feedback than the others. The participants that edited their Facebook profile actually gave themselves the highest marks.

“For many people, there’s an automatic assumption that the internet is bad,” Hancock is quoted saying in an article published by CNN. “This is one of the first studies to show that there’s a psychological benefit of Facebook.”

Is the grass really greener?

Another study supports this finding as it found that those who like themselves tend to share more of themselves through social networks. And, that those more active on social networks tend to think more highly of themselves.

At the same time, another set of research published this past January, found that Facebook reinforces the idea that “the grass is always greener” and that everyone else is happier and better off than you. This research “suggests that people may think they are more alone in their emotional difficulties than they really are.” Not exactly a recipe for great self-esteem…

What does this mean for us?

Given the mixed results already discussed, we know research has also found that Facebook and social networking can help increase connectedness among certain communities–especially when it comes to our health. This post is in no way meant to be a down-with-Facebook rant. More so, here’s the take-away for us: Have a self-awareness of the good and the bad impact Facebook may have on you, to your community and in your work. Knowing and understanding the positive impact technology can have as well as its potentially harmful effects is a part of digital literacy. For those working in public Health, it’s an awareness we need to consider.

BONUS: BJ Fogg’s Psychology of Facebook class is on my need-to-do list. 

Do you know of additional research that looks into the psychology of Facebook? Please share!

flickr credit: Jason A. Samfield

New Research Suggests The Color Pink is Bad for Breast Cancer

Gender Cue ResearchA new research area around gender cues and its impact on awareness and fundraising efforts is just getting off the ground according to Dr. Stefano Puntoni, an Associate Professor of Marketing Management at the Rotterdam School of Management, in an interview conducted by Harvard Business Review.

“[Gender que research] is quite new…Over the past 10 years, researchers have put more effort into thinking about consumer welfare. What can we we do as researchers to help consumers make better decisions?” Dr. Puntoni said. “How can we effect change in areas like overeating and disease prevention? This is part of that. We could go more general with gender cue research, but breast cancer is such an important disease that I want to study this more on its own.”

Dr. Puntoni is talking about the findings from 10 different experiments over the past three years that suggest gender cues (such as the color pink) may be counter-productive to campaigns against women’s diseases, such as breast cancer awareness and fundraising efforts. The main insight from the research found that when women saw branding that included gender cues (like the color pink), the branding and ads were less effective. Why? Possibly because the subconscious goes into a state of denial, causing women to:

  • Think they are less likely be at risk
  • Say they are less likely to donate in reaction to a breast or ovarian cancer advertisement

The infographic below created by One to One Global highlights more of the Dr. Puntoni’s research:

Gender Cue Research

Komen Responds

A spokeswomen for Susan G. Komen responded to the research in Ad Age saying that: “The research is food for thought but pink has worked well over the years,” she said. “I would say that in our experience for over 30 years now we’ve been pretty successful using pink. We’ve raised over $2 billion for research and community programs to help people with breast cancer. I don’t want to necessarily discount [the research]. It’s something to look at and consider, but our historic experience has been that we’re doing okay with the pink.”

The AdAge article continues:

Susan G. Komen, who died of breast cancer in 1980, also wore a lot of pink, the spokeswoman said, forming a strong association for her sister Nancy G. Brinker, who later founded Susan G. Komen for the Cure. “It’s not just a random color we selected,” she said. “It actually reflects the connection between the two sisters and the promise that was made.”

Though some have seen success with the color pink specifically, the research around gender cues is “something to consider” for breast cancer and beyond. Just like there’s cause fatigue, perhaps there’s been so much success—that younger generations of women don’t see the risk or the need to donate.

What do you think?

Citation:
Puntoni, S., Sweldens, S. & Tavassoli, N.T. (2011). Gender Identity Salience and Perceived Vulnerability to Breast Cancer. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(June), 413-424.
flickr credit: ILRI

Margaret Mead Predicts Social Science

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.” Margaret Mead said this in the early 20th century. Who knew that in the early nineteen hundreds, she’d be quoting today’s science?

People and Crowds

A new study conducted at the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute on how beliefs spread through social networks found that minority rules: Only 10% of a population needs to be convinced of a new or different opinion to change the beliefs of an entire community.

According to the article, there are two main take-aways for those in the public health space:

  • Public health campaigns might do well to target a small percentage of a community.
  • Getting an entire population to adopt a new belief might require simply convincing 10 percent to believe it first.

In an interview, Prof. Boleslaw Szymanski, director of SCNARC, was quoted saying:

“We suggested,” Sreenivasan said, “that instead of trying to convince everyone, it might make the most sense to target selectively the people who are open-minded enough to hear out the evidence and make up their minds rationally.”

Reading through the details of this study is fascinating and so many questions come to mind for future exploration:

  • Is minority rule a good thing? This research helps us better understand the importance to develop messages, materials and services with a certain community in mind to help ignite a movement. However, taken to the extreme, one can’t help but wonder about this insight being applied with misguided intent.
  • Is 10% the tipping point? Once you reach 10% of the population–is that the tipping point for spreading ideas through social networks and alter behaviors on a larger scale?
  • Does this rule apply across the board? According to the article, the research is still in its early stages. It’s uncertain if this 10% rule will apply to all kinds of beliefs, especially political ones.
  • How does this connect with influencer theory? So much has been said about the role of influencers: who they are and how to connect with them–and if that even matters. Craig Lefebvre made a good point during last week’s CDC conference that the hyper-focus on influencers leads to a “distraction from understanding who are the ‘influenced’ and what can we learn from them.” I tend to agree.

What about you–What’s your reaction to this research?

flickr credit: ThisParticularGreg


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home2/flyfouch/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Behavior Change Made Easy (Sort of)

Tuesday was the start of the highly anticipated Mobile Health Conference taking place at Stanford University. Though not an on-site attendee, I’ve been staying up-to-date by tuning into the Twitter chat. You can too by following the hashtag: #mh2010.

While scanning the tweets, I came across what I consider a mother-daddy in the world of behavior change: an easy, do-it-yourself module for behavior change planning (see screenshot below) developed by Dr. BJ Fogg, founder of Stanford University’s Persuasive Technology Lab.

The wizard is designed to help those plan and design behavior change strategies through answering a brief set of questions. Depending on your answer, the wizard will describe the type of behavior you are working towards based upon Dr. Fogg’s Behavior Grid–which identifies 15 ways behavior can change (see image below).

This past week, I’ve been refreshing my knowledge of the different processes and documentation for social marketing and behavior change planning as one of my biggest observances in practice is that people like tangibles. They see a print ad or a PSA, and they can respond. But are those effective? Thus, in my current organization, I’m working to make behavior change and social marketing tangible and relevant–in terms of the new frontier of technology and the human experience. This is why Dr. Fogg’s work excites me–it’s a tangible. It breaks down behavior into bite size pieces we can understand, digest, analyze and follow-up on.

The conference continues on Tuesday, but already, even though I didn’t get to attend in person, I’m enthused to see that many of the presentations on day one got right into the heart of social marketing and behavior change–not just Dr. Fogg.

Why This Is Important to You…

If you are working to influence the world for good, have a mission or cause you are advocating, you need to get plugged into this arena. Social marketing is relevant and if you are doubtful, just scan the tweets from the Mobile Health Conference. We’ve all heard “Mobile is the future,” but social marketing and behavior change are right along with it. Want more evidence? Look at Jen McCabe’s presentation from the conference. The movement is growing. Join us.

Where Have All the Social Products Gone?

The debate between marketing and sales is not an old one. In fact, we’ve looked at this debate here at SB before. But one thing both sides can agree on: is that both have a relationship with products and services. Thus, if we are talking about social marketing, you don’t have to go far before you start wondering: Where are all the social products?

I’m not the first to ask this question, as I was inspired a bit back by Bill Smith of AED who challenged us social marketers to balance the scales more between the promotion side of marketing and the product side of marketing. And it was again highlighted in the Social Marketing Quarterly’s Summer issue.

Now, some people when they hear products–the hairs on the back of their neck raise. How can marketing products be in line with social marketing behaviors? This is because some people align a “product” with “revenue.” Then, it just gets sticky–often, these arguments are short sighted in my opinion. Before I get completely side tracked from my original purpose of this post, let’s keep moving forward.

I like the concept of “social products” also because it’s a moment to be creative. What products could exist that would help us live healthier, happier? Thus, instead of creating yet another 30-second PSA, take time in the conference room to consider the product side of marketing.

There’s more research available about leveraging products in a social marketing strategy, but I like how Nedra Weinreich sums it up on her company Web site:

“In order to have a viable product, people must first perceive that they have a genuine problem, and that the product offering is a good solution for that problem. The role of research here is to discover the consumers’ perceptions of the problem and the product, and to determine how important they feel it is to take action against the problem.”

Some Examples

  • The Red Card. Bill Smith shared this example with us at the 2008 World Social Marketing Card. Rather than just create a PSA to curb sexual pressure and abuse among young girls in Madagascar, AED created the red card–a product–that girls could use as an added to tool to say no.
  • FDA’s Peanut Recall Widget. In addition to creating press releases and sending out Tweets, the FDA and CDC worked together to create a tool in the form of a widget–a product–that people could use to find recalled food items they should avoid purchasing.
  • Road Crew. Services can also be part of the “product” piece of marketing. In Wisconsin, Road Crews offer rides to those who have drank too much to drive as a way to curb drunk driving.

Do you know where all the social products have gone? Feel free to share examples or future ideas.