Using media campaigns for health promotion.

To date the preponderance of scholarly effort exerted on this topic has focused on developing theory "for" campaigns i.e. new psychological and sociological theory that administrative researchers can use to guide the design of interventions in hopes of improving effectiveness (Salmon 1992). Drawing on this substantial body of scholarship we know that many health campaigns have attained a rather modest impact because of meager resources poor conceptualization and narrow strategic approaches. The limited potency of the media has several implications for campaigners. It is advisable to have realistic expectations especially when attempting to influence fundamental behaviors in the short run. Campaigners should be prepared for the long haul because many campaigns will take years to achieve a significant impact. More emphasis should be given to relatively attainable effects by aiming at more receptive focal segments and by creating or promoting more palatable positive products with a favorable cost-benefit ratio. Campaign designers should play to the strengths of the mass media by imparting new knowledge (e.g. a TV spot informing people about the nutritional value of soy) enhancing salience (e.g. news publicity stressing the importance of reducing drunk driving) providing instruction (e.g. a pamphlet describing protective sexual behaviors) triggering action (e.g. a radio announcement reminding drivers to buckle up during a snowstorm) and stimulating information-seeking (e.g. a radio ad prompting listeners to call a hotline or consult a physician). The relatively small set of packaged campaign stimuli can be augmented by stimulating sensitization to existing media content and by generating publicity. The quantity of messages can be increased by pursuing monetary resources to enable paid placements and by utilizing creative and political resources to generate free publicity and engineer health entertainment portrayals. Media messages should be augmented by supplementary education persuasion and control (e.g. classroom instruction physician advice social influence and environmental constraints) using the media campaign to shape and energize these forces. Through the use of these approaches campaign effectiveness is likely to be enhanced. But the legacy of our fields overwhelmingly narrow administrative focus on the tactical and strategic dimensions of campaigns should not deter health communication researchers from simultaneously developing theory "of" campaigns i.e. to more systematically define and specify parameters of campaigns and to understand them as social constructions (Salmon 1992). Campaigns are frequently the tool of choice preferred by social engineers even when they are not necessarily the most efficient or effective. Why and for what political and ideological motives are they used with such frequency? Which segments of society benefit from the use of this particular approach to social change and which suffer? What are the ethical consequences of continuing to use a strategy of social change that is known to be only modestly effective? The answers to these questions can only enhance our understanding of campaigns and more importantly our ability to effect positive and significant changes in the health of communities that we serve. (excerpt)