Tumblr Contemplates A New Policy Against Self-Harm Blogs: Let's All Weigh In

Tumblr is a popular microblogging platform.  It lets you share anything from text to pictures to video.  According to their website, the average Tumblr user creates 14 original posts each month, and reblogs 3. The "reblog" button on all Tumblr posts allows a meme to spread rapidly across thousands of blogs with just one click.

As with other social media platforms, tumblr has an enormous reach (18,878,347,183 total posts as of the time of this blog).  Therefore, it has great potential to help and hurt the public's health as it facilitates communication among millions of people.

A few weeks ago, Tumblr presented to its users a challenge (and possible solution) regarding blogs that promote self-harm.  Their users are being asked to weigh in on the policy.  I think that is a smart move.

Here is an excerpt from the Tumblr staff blog: 

Our Content Policy has not, until now, prohibited blogs that actively promote self-harm. These typically take the form of blogs that glorify or promote anorexia, bulimia, and other eating disorders; self-mutilation; or suicide. These are messages and points of view that we strongly oppose, and don’t want to be hosting. The question for us has been whether it’s better to (a) prohibit them, as a statement against the very ideas of self-harm that they are advancing, or (b) permit them to stay up, accompanied by a public service warning that directs readers to helplines run by organizations like the National Eating Disorders Association.

We are planning to post a new, revised Content Policy in the very near future, and we’d like to ask for input from the Tumblr community on this issue.

The blog goes on to say that they currently think the right answer is to implement a policy against pro self-harm blogs.  They aim to focus only on blogs that actively glorify or promote these behaviors. They also intend to start showing public service announcements (PSAs) on specific search terms like "anorexic" or "thinsperation".  It is unclear from their post how this policy will actually be implemented.  It would take enormous staff resources to comprehensively review their site and remove concerning materials. 

Other online and social media platforms have struggled with similar issues regarding how to respond to users that may be searching for or posting worrisome content.  Here are a few examples of other challenges and solutions:

• When someone uses Google or Yahoo to search for the term "suicide", the link to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is provided as the first result.
• In December 2011, Facebook began a new service that allows "Friends" to report concerning posts.  Facebook then sends an email to the person who posted the suicidal comment encouraging them to call the hotline or click on a link to begin a confidential chat. Note that Facebook does not troll the site itself, but instead waits for reports to come in.  
• Pop Health has previously posted about the debate regarding Twitter's duty to restrict hate speech vs. its duty to promote free speech among its users.

From these examples, you can see that there have been a variety of approaches to address potentially unhealthy or unsafe posts on social media platforms.  Sites can decide to be inclusive of all posts, they can let users police each other and report concerns, they can post resources in response to keywords, they can actively prohibit certain content...or they can use some combination of these strategies.

• What strategy or combination of strategies is best for the public's health?  
• If users are prohibited from posting, does that make them more isolated and less likely to connect to services?
• Should the overall health of the user group outweigh the health of that individual?

Tumblr is encouraging users to weigh in on their plan...so I ask you to both comment here and contact them at policy@tumblr.com. 

Anti-vaccine ads on Delta planes; Magic and Ellen as celebrity champions for HIV/AIDS prevention...and more- What Am I Reading This Week?

New pop culture and public health stories to check out this week:

1. Darrell Hammond of Saturday Night Live fame reveals that child abuse led to alcohol/drug use and cutting. He details the horrific abuse in a new memoir, "God, If You're Not Up There, I'm F*cked".

2. Fellow Boston University School of Public Health alum Elizabeth Cohen reports on the 20th anniversary of Magic Johnson's announcement that he is HIV positive. His announcement had an incredible impact on the public's health- both in terms of reducing stigma of those diagnosed and proving that the diagnosis is not always a death sentence.

3. Delta airlines is seeing backlash from public health organizations and other flu vaccine advocates after airing a 3-minute PSA from the National Vaccine Information Center that describes alternate ways to avoid the flu (besides getting the flu shot).

4. Ellen DeGeneres is named global envoy for AIDS awareness. The hope is that Ellen's enormous platform (from both her TV show and social media channels) will allow her to reach millions of people with the prevention message. Ellen is a partner in other important public health issues, for example- bullying prevention.

5. This week, Evelyn Lauder passed away from Ovarian Cancer. Evelyn was one of the powers behind the creation of the pink ribbon campaign for breast cancer awareness.

How about you? What are you reading this week?

Miami Dolphin Brandon Marshall's New PSA for Borderline Personality Disorder

In July 2011, Brandon Marshall revealed that he was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). According to the National Education Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder, this serious mental illness centers on the inability to manage emotions effectively. The condition which has strong heritability (68%) and a high suicide rate (10% of adults with BPD die by suicide), produces symptoms such as impulsivity, anger, and chaotic relationships.

When Brandon announced his condition this summer, he vowed to become the face of borderline personality disorder. He seems to be following through on his promise, as he has just released a public service announcement (PSA) in collaboration with the National Education Alliance for Borderline Personality Disorder. The 33-second video is primarily focused on 3 key messages:

1. Prevalence of this condition is high (15 million Americans)
2. There is hope (treatment exists for those who suffer and education exists for families coping with the disorder)
3. There are resources: visit the NEABPD website or follow Brandon on Twitter (@BMarshall19) for more information

I like the PSA for several reasons. It is simple with clear messages (above). The messages are delivered both verbally by Brandon and visually with key words appearing on the screen. The "call to action" is clear. Viewers are directed to the NEABPD website and Brandon's Twitter feed for more information.

I also like that this particular health issue has found a champion or spokesperson. Unlike other mental health conditions like depression with several celebrity spokespeople (e.g., Brooke Shields), less is known about BPD and those who suffer from it. Experts in mental illness stigma like Patrick Corrigan state that there are several strategies for reducing stigma...and one of those strategies is called "Contact". Contact challenges public attitudes about mental illness through direct interactions with persons who have these disorders. The contact does not have to be face to face, but instead can occur through a channel like a PSA.

The strategies that I see for improving this PSA are focused less on its composition, but instead on its distribution/promotion. Although the video has been on YouTube for 6 days, it only has 309 views. Announcements about the PSA are located primarily on football blogs (e.g., Shut Down Corner) or BPD specific websites. It does not seem that the PSA has been picked up by mainstream media or health blogs. This is in sharp contrast to PSAs I've spoken about previously on Pop Health, like in July 2011 when I discussed Kim Kardashian's ovarian cancer research spot which currently has 33,431 views.

Readers- please weigh in: which mental health advocacy organizations would have the best "reach" in promoting this PSA? What other strategies could they use for distribution/promotion?

"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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

Courteney and David: A Poorly Designed PSA That Makes Me Want to "Scream"

So Courteney Cox and David Arquette are having a tough week. First they announced their separation and now I have to highlight the poor design of a recent public service announcement (PSA) in which they starred. I must say- they made a much better team on the set of their "Scream" movies.

A recent Newsweek article entitled "Can PSAs End Domestic Violence?" discussed the Cox/Arquette PSA and outlined the challenges of using this particular health communication channel to address the public health problem of domestic violence. The article quotes a wonderful professor of mine (thank you Dr. Emily Rothman for posting this link), so I decided to check the PSA out for myself. Overall, my impression was not good. Let's compare the PSA to some best practices and/or guidelines and see how it holds up. A great resource on this (and all aspects of program planning) comes from the Community Toolbox:

1. PSA Length
A typical PSA runs about 30 seconds. This video runs 1 minute, 50 seconds. And the viewer does not even know what the video is about (cue a random segment about "furry" sex) until the timer hits 1 minute, 25 seconds. They could have very easily lost viewers by that point (either due to boredom, confusion, or because they were offended by the "furry" segment).

2. PSAs Should Have a Clear Message and Call To Action (i.e., what do you want the viewer to do after they see your video?)
So I was a little surprised that the video did not include any specific hotline numbers. In case the audience included victims of DV, you would think that it would be a priority to list those resources. Instead, the only "action" that I could see outlined was how to donate to "OPCC"...and it was unclear what that organization was. So I followed the instructions at the end of the video that gave their Facebook address. Again, there is a huge logo that says "OPCC" (still not sure what that is, so I probably won't give money) and finally (in much smaller writing) some hotline numbers on the left. I went one more step and went to the Ocean Park Community Center (OPCC) website, where it still wasn't immediately clear how this organization supported domestic violence prevention. Apparently, this PSA was to support one of the community programs called Sojourn (a women's shelter)...but geez- how hard was that to figure out!!!???

3. Like any good health communication product, there should be a clear target audience
I have no idea who the audience was for this PSA. This is a direct result of the lack of a clear "call to action". This video had no idea who they expected as an audience or what they wanted those individuals to do. Before the video starts, we are told "this is not for kids" (again- due to the "furry"). So kids are excluded as a possible audience- which is a shame because young adults are also victims of domestic violence. I'm assuming that domestic violence victims themselves are not the audience, since the video did not include any links to DV hotlines/shelters. I doubt the audience was supposed to be DV perpetrators, because I doubt that they would be giving donations. So maybe the intended audience was just potential donors? It is unclear.

4. Evaluation
Ahh! I know I'm a broken record about this issue on my blog. As Dr. Rothman states in the Newsweek article, "there haven't been that many well-designed, rigorous evaluations of the ad's effectiveness". The OPCC spokesperson says that it has been effective because "people are talking about the ad" (how do we know?) and Facebook traffic was up (as of tonight, just 365 people had "liked" the page). But even if "talk" is increased, is that really changing the attitudes or behaviors that were (maybe) targeted by this PSA? If they had clearer goals and a call to action (e.g., The audience for this PSA is women who are victims of DV and the behavior we want to see is an increase in calls to our hotline)- it would be much easier to evaluate. And that evaluation would go well beyond "awareness".