Comparison of Two Media/Marketing Campaigns for Syphilis in Indianapolis
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Comparison of Two Media/Marketing Campaigns for Syphilis in Indianapolis

on

  • 2,914 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,914
Views on SlideShare
2,908
Embed Views
6

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0

1 Embed 6

http://www.slideshare.net 6

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Comparison of Two Media/Marketing Campaigns for Syphilis in Indianapolis Presentation Transcript

  • 1. COMPARISON OF TWO MEDIA/MARKETING CAMPAIGNS FOR SYPHILIS IN INDIANAPOLIS DAWNE DIORIO REKAS, M.P.A. CATHERINE LESKO, M.P.H. JANET ARNO, M.D.
  • 2. Purpose of Our Talk
    • Compare and contrast two recent syphilis media/marketing campaigns aimed at two different target populations
    • Discuss lessons learned from one successful and one unsuccessful campaign
    • Show some examples of materials developed for each
  • 3. Syphilis Trends in Central Indiana
  • 4. 1999-2000 2008-2009 Syphilis in Marion County: 2 outbreaks
  • 5. Target Populations 2000 2008 African American Heterosexuals (no significant HIV) MSM (~60% previously diagnosed HIV) Indianapolis, low SES zip codes Indianapolis, moderate-high SES zip codes Sex for drugs (crack)/money Internet, public venues
  • 6. Campaign Goals
    • Determined through epi data
    • 2000 also RECAP survey
    • Increase awareness of outbreak
    • Increase knowledge of signs/symptoms
    • Motivate to get tested
  • 7. Components of Message Delivery Item 2000 2008 Cost $100,000 plus evaluation $25,000 Bus Cards X X Billboards X 0 Radio XXXXXX X TV XXXX 0 Print X X Posters X X Palm Cards X X Internet Awareness/PS 0 X Timing of Messages Staged (deliberate) On approval (incidental) Testing of Messages Focus Groups None
  • 8. 2000 Campaign
  • 9. 2000 Campaign
  • 10. Used in Both Campaigns
  • 11. Used in 2008 Campaign
  • 12. Other Activities
    • 2000 – conducted syphilis screening in County Jail, community-based screening in hot zones, provider letters, market research, Grand Rounds, Presentation to every ER in city, door-to-door screening in hot zones
    • Event: Indiana Black Expo
    • 2008 – conducted syphilis (HIV) screening in bars, bathhouse and Internet Outreach, internet partner notification, provider letters, Surveillance staff visits to top 10 reporters to encourage syphilis screening
    • Event: Indy Gay Pride
  • 13. Method of Evaluation
    • 2000 – Street intercept survey in high morbidity zip code areas
    • 2008 – Pre and post- campaign surveys of high-risk populations (MSM bars, bathhouses, HIV care coordination clients, HIV provider patients)
  • 14. Results 2000 2008 69% recalled campaign 72% claimed they had recently seen/heard something about syphilis before the media campaign, compared to only 67% after Of these, 23% took action Of those who heard something before the campaign, 50% got tested. Of those who heard something after the campaign, only 31% got tested Standard for successful marketing campaigns = 3-5% take action Those that heard the syphilis message before the media campaign were more likely to have been tested in the past 3 months (41% compared to 22%) or in the past year (73% compared to 39%).
  • 15. Analysis – Lessons Learned 2000 2008 Target population not knowledgeable about syphilis or general health matters Target population very knowledgeable Target population very concerned about syphilis and motivated to avoid infection Target population not concerned and not motivated Much larger budget, professional planning and implementation Small budget, no formative research or professional planning of campaign Message deliberately developed by focus group No focus group; Message developed by committee; diluted by media placement needs Outbreak linked to an issue important to activities (neighborhoods) Outbreak not linked to issue of importance (may be due to no significant input by MSM)
  • 16. Analysis, cont.
    • 2000 campaign “successful”
    • 2008 campaign “ not so much”!
    • Attributed to budget for each and population differences
    • “ Yes, I saw the posters in the bathhouse about syphilis but I didn’t think that had anything to do with me”
    • Success of reaching community through word of mouth and community activities in 2008 may have confounded evaluation of media activities
  • 17. Articles of Interest
    • “ Broken Windows and Gonorrhea”, Deborah Cohen et al, AJPH, Feb. 2000, Vol. 90, No. 2
    • “ Short-Term Impact Evaluation of a Social Marketing Campaign to Prevent Syphilis Among Men Who Have Sex with Men”, William Darrow and Susan Biersteker, AJPH, Feb. 2008, Vol. 98, No. 2