Facebook Adds Organ Donation To Timeline: Should We "Like" It?

Typically, I post on Wednesdays.  However, with so much chatter about Facebook's announcement, this felt more timely.
Starting today, you can add your organ donation status to your Facebook timeline using the "share life" tool.  If you are already registered, you can share your story about where and why you decided to become an organ donor.  If you are interested in registering, you can follow links to official donor registries.

ABC has been a primary news source for this announcement, interviewing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, demonstrating how to use the "share life" tool, and discussing myths and facts about organ donation.

Scanning Facebook and Twitter today (especially among my public health colleagues), the response seems to be overwhelmingly positive.  From my perspective, the Facebook tool has the potential to be effective (i.e., increasing the number of registered donors) because it focuses on action.  The tool is not for education.  The tool actually links to registries so that you can sign up.  The tool aims to increase the visibility of already registered donors, which in turn will influence others to sign up.  The tool aims to decrease the stigma and secrecy of talking about end of life decisions by putting it right up there next to your birth date and relationship status.  This may also influence others to sign up.  In previous posts, I have written about public health campaigns that use social media in order to reduce the stigma around an "undesirable" topic (e.g., STD testing).

Although I am 100% supportive of the mission of increasing organ donors and am familiar with the dire need for donations (e.g., 18 people will die each day waiting for an organ), I have a few reservations about "share life":

In today's New York Times coverage of the Facebook announcement, I read a sentence that concerned me (I added the underlining):

"The company announced a plan on Tuesday morning to encourage everyone on Facebook to start advertising their donor status on their pages, along with their birth dates and schools — a move that it hopes will create peer pressure to nudge more people to add their names to the rolls of registered organ donors".

I consider declaration as an organ donor to be a medical decision.  In public health and medicine, we strive for patients and the public to make such decisions from a position that is informed and lacks pressure from physicians or family or friends.  Therefore, I have reservations about people signing up without educating themselves first and/or because they feel pressure on Facebook.  Just a few weeks ago, I posted about "hashtag activism" and how easy it has become to get involved in causes via social media.  Are we as thoughtful when we participate in causes on Facebook as when we participate in real life?

My other ongoing concern is regarding the proper security and use of personal information that is gathered by Facebook.  Will your organ donation status result in particular advertisements being sent your way?  I remember updating my Facebook status to "engaged" 4 years ago and being overwhelmed by the wedding planning advertisements on my page.  There is increasing public outcry regarding privacy settings and the personal information you enter being used for Facebook to attract advertisers and other business opportunities. 

Again, I am 100% supportive of the organ donation mission.  I think the reach of Facebook offers tremendous public health opportunities (including the possible elimination of long wait time for organs).  While that is an attractive outcome, we must always remember to focus on the ethics of the process as well.

What do you think?

•  Facebook has become directly involved with several public health issues (e.g., suicide, bullying, organ donation).  Are their strategies effective?  Why or why not? 
• Do you foresee any unintended consequences from the organ donation tool?
• Will you include your organ donation status on your Facebook timeline?  Why or why not?

 

"Hashtag Activism"- Is It Working For Public Health?

Last year on Facebook, my timeline was suddenly filled with status updates of just one word.  Red. Black. White.  "What is this?" I thought to myself.  It turned out that it was a breast cancer awareness campaign.  Facebook users were listing their bra colors to help prevent breast cancer.  And there are tons of these public health campaigns all over social networking sites.  "Like" our Facebook page to prevent cancer!  "Re tweet" this message to prevent heart disease!  For those of you familiar with my blog, you'll remember that I think "raising awareness" is the most counter-productive phrase used in our work.  It is not specific enough to measure for change and (on its own) it will not change health behaviors.  

So I thought of my frustration with these campaigns as I read a great article in the New York Times this week called, "Hashtag Activism, and Its Limits".  David Carr writes eloquently about the ease of supporting a variety of causes:

"If you “like” something, does that mean you care about it?  It’s an important distinction in an age when you can accumulate social currency on Facebook or Twitter just by hitting the “like” or “favorite” button.

The ongoing referendum on the Web often seems more like a kind of collective digital graffiti than a measure of engagement: I saw this thing, it spoke to me for at least one second, and here is my mark to prove it".

I like that David brings up the question of engagement here.  Many of these public health campaigns on social media just strive for "likes" on Facebook or "hits" on a website or "re tweets" on Twitter.  And not that they mean nothing, but those measures are just the tip of the iceberg in measuring audience engagement.  And audience engagement (beyond "raising awareness") is what could actually lead to public health activism, knowledge change, and ultimately behavior change. Leslie Lewis gives a great overview of Return on Engagement (ROE) on her blog "digital.good".  According to Leslie, ROE measures tend to be more qualitative and measure message reach and spread.  In addition to "likes", ROE also measures things like brand/campaign awareness, comments, shares, and returning visitors. 

I certainly do not think that all public health campaigns delivered via social media are ineffective.  On the contrary, I think that social media is an incredibly powerful tool for public health.  David Carr makes similar comments later in his article.  Challenging his initial skepticism of web activism, he lists several recent "campaigns" that have been quite effective (e.g., the reversal of Susan G. Komen de-funding Planned Parenthood).

However, to use social media effectively in public health, we must be strategic and we must evaluate.  

Some sample questions that I ask program planners:

• What is the goal of the campaign?  (e.g., to drive traffic to your website; increase hotline calls; increase specific behaviors like breast self examination?).
• How will the campaign activities (logically) lead to the desired goal/outcome?
• Are your goals/outcomes measurable?
• Have you thought about evaluation before launching the campaign?
• Besides the ideas listed above, how are you measuring "audience engagement"?

 
 What other questions should we be asking?

Pink Fatigue? JCPenney's Sexist Merchandise. Smoking and its Box Office Impact. What Am I Reading This Week?

Here are the top 5 stories I'm following this week:

1. Amid breast cancer month- Is there pink fatigue? A very important public health story. "Awareness" does not equal behavior change (e.g., increased screenings or access to medical care). A related story appeared last week in Upstream: A forum on interdisciplinary health communication.

2. JCPenney CEO responds to petition to stop selling sexist clothing marketed to young girls like "I'm too pretty to do homework". The company is using this incident as a "teachable moment".

3. The use of social media in street protests can be effective for both protesters and police. A story in ScienceDaily.

4. Smoking is a drag at the box office. An analysis of top-grossing movies from the past decade shows that films with smoking make less money.

5. Video game can reduce fatigue in African American women with lupus. A pilot study to explore using Wii Fit to reduce fatigue.

What are you reading this week?

(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.

In Honor of World AIDS Day: Can Celebrity "Digital Deaths" Prevent Real Deaths from HIV/AIDS?

Kim Kardashian, Ryan Seacrest, and Lady Gaga are all dead! No, not really...but they are considered "Digitally Dead" for today- World AIDS Day (December 1st). These celebrities and many more joined forces with a charity co-founded by singer Alicia Keys called Keep a Child Alive. The charity provides treatment, love, and support to families affected by HIV/AIDS.

For today's campaign, celebs were pictured in coffins, featured in "last video testaments", and pledging to stay digitally silent on their social media accounts (i.e., on Facebook and Twitter) until their lives were "bought back" by donors reaching a minimum of one million dollars total. Although the images of celebs in coffins were a little creepy, Keep a Child Alive co-founder Leigh Blake says:

"We're trying to sort of make the remark: Why do we care so much about the death of one celebrity as opposed to millions and millions of people dying in the place that we're all from? Its about love and respect and human dignity."

It is an interesting concept for a health communication/advocacy campaign. Usually when campaigns advocate via social media, it is done by bombarding their followers with messages and links to donate or sign up to assist the cause. Here, the campaign is trying to motivate donors by having an ABSENCE of the celebrities' voices. How powerful is that absence? Will the public really miss reading celebs tweets and facebook status updates? Apparently so. As of tonight on Twitter, Kim Kardashian had 5,467,107 followers and Ryan Seacrest had 3,683,658 followers. So whether we like it or not, the voices (and silences) of these celebrities matter in our communities.

While I do think the campaign will have large reach, I will say that their coffin posters left room for improvement. I've analyzed health communication campaigns on this blog before, and the key is always- "What is the cue to action? Does the audience know what they are supposed to do after seeing the poster/brochure/PSA?" Well- when I first saw this poster of Kim Kardashian, I had no idea what it was about. I had to Google and read the narrative about the World AIDS Day campaign for Keep A Child Alive. For this blog post, I had to blow the image up over 100% to read the text on the bottom of the poster. It reads,

"Kim sacrificed her digital life to give real life to millions of others affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa and India. That means no more Facebook or Twitter until we buy her life back". Then the charity website and text number were provided to accept donations. In future campaigns, they would want that text to be much bigger. It should not take the audience several minutes, a Google search, and a magnifying glass to figure out what they are supposed to do to help poor Kim get out of that coffin.

Overall, I give this campaign a B+ for creativity in using the "absence" of social media messages and targeting celebrities with a huge following and reach to potential donors.

Technology: Building Social Connections or Breaking Them Down?

Last week, a friend at work told me that she had given up watching TV for Lent. She said "every time I give up TV, my quality of life goes up". I thought of her immediately today as I read this new article in TIME, "Logged on, checked out...of relationships?" The article discusses a study (published in the March issue of the journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine) which studied adolescents during two periods of time (1988 and 2004). The adolescents who spent more time watching TV or playing video games were more likely to report lower quality relationships compared with those who logged less screen time.
I find this fascinating because I have followed the debate among colleagues and friends regarding the increase in the use of technology and its impact on social connections. For example, kids that may be "outcasts" at school may find friends online. They may have hundreds of Facebook "friends". They may find lots of kids with similar interests by joining "groups" online. However, one has to ask, are Facebook friends "real"? I personally have 355 friends on Facebook, but would only consider about 10 of those people close friends in my day to day life. Is it worth it to focus your time and attention to online activities (as noted above) to the detriment of your "real life" relationships with friends and family?
In looking at how social connectedness can be a protective factor for things like suicide, the question has also come up: "Is it the quantity or quality of relationships that really count?" In research on college students, studies like Healthy Minds are beginning to indicate that it is the quality that counts. However, unlike my previous posts where it has been easy for me to take one side or the other...I'm torn about this issue. The authors of the above study were as well...they note that there is an obvious correlation between online activities and relationship quality, but the causal link is not clear.
Therefore, I believe it is probably some happy balance that is best. Facebook friends and groups are not all superficial and time wasters. People can connect (or in many cases, "reconnect") with friends and colleagues with shared histories or interests. I've seen Friends post a concerning or unsafe status and 20 people jump in with words of encouragement or offers of help...which is wonderful. On the flip side, it helps to turn the computer or TV off and enjoy the world around us...strengthen those connections with those we live with, eat dinner away from the TV, etc. And of course on that note, I'll log off. LOST starts at 9pm ;)