Choose your medicine: Sid, Frank or Jamie
- Editor John Hitchins previews the next issue of Behind the Spin, due out on February 1
What communication strategies are most effective in promoting good health ?
And what part can they play compared to other factors such as genetics, parenting, economic policy (taxes on alcohol and tobacco, for example) or medical treatment ?
To judge by the proliferation of health promotion campaigns by charities, drugs companies, local authorities, NHS trusts and the Department of Health we seem to place great faith in the power of persuasion to change people’s behaviour.
In addition to the Government’s on-going campaigns on smoking cessation, alcohol misuse and immunisation, Sid the Slug has urged us to eat less salt (Food Standards Agency), the British Heart Foundation has reminded us that blood clots get under the skin of smokers, kids have been told to be Frank about drugs and the Department of Health is launching a £50 million – yes, £50 million – integrated marketing communications campaign to tackle the spread of sexually transmitted disease.
Wow. Or Phew. Or…. just hold on a minute. While public relations consultancies may be relishing the prospect of more and more health promotion work, what evidence is there to show that public information programmes of this kind are cost effective ?
Media coverage has certainly been generated, an achievement which the PR industry in its awards and case studies apparently regards as a proper measurement of programme outcomes. Public awareness of health problems has been raised, even if temporarily, among some target groups. But have there been changes for the better in health-related behaviour ? The statistics are not encouraging.
After fifty years of aggressive anti-smoking campaigns, a quarter of us still smoke, and Alex Pullin shows how teenage girls in particular have rejected the message. Alcohol consumption and binge drinking among young people have reached alarming levels. And, oh yes, if kids continue to eat junk food at the present rate, half of all children in England could be obese by 2020.
With so much preventable ill health, there clearly is a role for properly considered communications programmes to reinforce relevant changes in public policy, such as restrictions on smoking in public places or better food labelling.
In our view, the best health education initiative last year was the television series Jamie’s School Dinners. Although it was based in the London borough of Greenwich, it made a huge impact nationally. It used credible opinion formers in the shape of Jamie and his cast of school dinner ladies; it generated coverage in a range of other media to reinforce the television series; it addressed an urgent problem – childhood obesity – and moved it further up the public agenda. Result: a new initiative by central and local government to provide healthier school meals.
But before we pat ourselves on the back and use it as an example of a good health education programme adopting the best public relations principles we should remember that it was not primarily a health education programme. It was popular entertainment designed to win big TV ratings.
Influencing the way film and TV portray different aspects of health behaviour may be the most powerful intervention health educators can make. In this issue Will Duffield questions the media’s use of celebrities to endorse unsafe diets or fitness regimes, Clare Goldie looks at the way McDonalds has responded to the Super Size Me film and Rebekah Ling challenges the unhelpful portrayal of ME.
We also look at other conditions which deserve to be better understood: dyslexia, diabetes, strokes and haemophilia.
Peter Brill wonders why Ryanair continues to treat disabled passengers so shabbily, Ros Jones pays tribute to London’s Olympic bid and we take a lighthearted look at how women use cosmetics to change their image and ward off the ravages of time.
Recent Comments