Testing the effectiveness of PSAs aimed at reducing SSB consumption A M Y J O R D A N P R E S E N T A T I O N T O T H E R U D D C E N T E R F O R F O O D P O L I C Y A N D O B E S I T Y N O V E M B E R 13 , 2 0 12
APPC’s research 2 Recommendations Baseline survey of for campaign Philadelphians approach (August, (Summer, 2010) 2010) Focus Group Ad agency finalizes Testing of draft messages; PDPH campaign msgs. chooses (October, 2010) Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
APPC’s research 3 New Baseline Campaign launch survey (late January, (early January, 2011) 2011) Monitoring survey Online Message Waves 1 to 5 Testing (February, 2011 to (Spring, 2011) July, 2011) Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
APPC’s research 4 Focus Group Phase 2 Campaign Phase 2 Campaign Testing of Phase 2 Development Launches messages (September, 2011) (July, 2011) Final Report Monitoring survey (available from (Waves 6-9) PDPH) Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Formative Research Findings 5 Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Predicting Intentions: The Integrative Model 6 Attitude Normative Intentions Pressure Self Efficacy
Baseline Survey 7 Methodology Telephone survey with 516 Philadelphia parents of children ages 3-16 to assess current attitudes, beliefs, behaviors related to sedentary activity, physical activity, and nutrition Findings Parents often do not recognize when their child is overweight Both parents and children drink 2-3 SSBs per day Parents recognize SSBs are a factor in weight gain Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Key Findings from Baseline 8 Norms and self-efficacy not related to intention Beliefs that decrease intention to cut back on SSBs Make child unhappy Make eating meals less enjoyable Beliefs that increase intention to cut back on SSBs Prevent children’s weight gain Improve sleep Make caregiver feel he/ she is doing something good for family Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Focus Groups 9 Draft campaign materials presented at both phases before finalizing campaign (total 8 groups) Key Finding: Philadelphia parents are NOT concerned about weight status but they ARE concerned about diabetes and other chronic diseases Other themes: fear of stigma; need for empowerment Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
PDPH Campaign is launched 10 Campaign runs January, 2011 to March, 2012 Priority audience: African American mothers Target buys in radio, television, transit for priority audience as well as General Audience Spending, for all media, is less than $1 million for more than 1 year Pro-SSB marketing far exceeds this; and Philly has no lobbyist disclosure laws so no reliable data on counter-counter marketing spending by the American Beverage Association Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Key Questions for APPC 11 Are Philadelphians aware of the campaign? Is exposure associated with intention to cut back SSB consumption? Which messages are most effective? Is exposure associated with key beliefs highlighted in campaign messages? Does intention to cut back increase over time? Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Main limitation 12 Data are cross-sectional Beliefs and intention may be the result of exposure to the campaign; but Those who already hold these beliefs may be more likely to pay attention to the campaign Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Monitoring Survey Findings 13 Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Monitoring Survey Methodology 14 Nine monitoring surveys were conducted between January 2011 and March 2012 A total of 1,367 Philadelphia caregivers were surveyed across the nine waves (average: n= 150 per wave) Respondents selected using random digit dialing and random selection from a publicly available list of households with a child within the targeted age Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
To what extent were Philadelphians exposed to the Get Healthy Philly media campaign messages? 15 Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
To what extent were Philadelphians exposed to the Get Healthy Philly media campaign messages? 16 Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
To what extent did the Get Healthy Philly media campaign reach its priority audience? 17 Exposure by priority group versus others Priority group Non priority group 8 8 7.96 6 6 Average Exposure Average Exposure 4.89 4 4 3.90 3.46 3.38 2.40 2 2 2.15 2.06 1.68 1.23 0 0 General AA General AA TV TV Radio Radio Radio Radio Transit Posters Transit Posters Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Average Monthly Exposure (in days) 18 Exposures by message type 15 14.69 Average Exposure 10 5 4.31 4.11 3.62 2.26 1.85 0 TV General Radio AA Radio Transit Posters Total Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Is exposure to the campaign associated with intention to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption? 19 Exposure to Campaign Messages and Intention to Reduce SSBs General AA Adult TV Radio Transit Posters Radio Intention Adult Intention .09 .05 .11 .09 -.06 --- Target Child .09 .00 .22* .12* -.11* .65* Intention * p < .05 Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Are some messages more effective than others? 20 Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
General Audience TV (The Talk) 21 Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Exposure to The Talk and SSB-related Outcomes 22 The Talk, TV Positively associated with the belief that sugary beverage consumption is related to overweight Positively associated with the belief that sugary beverage consumption is related to type 2 diabetes Positively associated with the belief that substituting with a non-sugary beverage would “decrease diabetes risk” Positively associated with respondents’ report of child’s SSB consumption Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Campaign Message Example: African American Audience Radio (Jump Rope) 23 Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Exposure to “Jump Rope” and SSB-Related Outcomes 24 Jump Rope, African American Radio Positively associated with respondent ratings of the amount of sugar in sugary beverages for African American females (priority audience) Positively associated with intention to substitute with a non-sugary beverage for child for African American females (priority audience) Positively associated with the belief that substituting with a non- sugary beverage would “make you feel like you were doing something good for your family” (most effective with priority audience) Positively associated with the belief that substituting with a non- sugary beverage would “improve sleep” Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Is the length of the campaign run associated with an increased intention to substitute sugary beverages with non-sugary beverages? 25 5.8 for Intention to Substitute Child's SSBs (1-7) 5.6 Predicted Values 5.4 5.2 5 2 4 6 8 10 wave Any TV Exposure No Yes Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
New APPC Research 26 RWJF HER Grant What are the persuasive strategies used in anti-SSB PSA campaigns across the US? What is the comparative efficacy of different persuasive approaches? How do audience characteristics moderate the effectiveness of the messages? Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Future Interests 27 Ensuring messages don’t have an iatrogenic effect 1. (perceived threat to choice and adolescents’ intention; creating a sense of “norm” that “everyone” drinks SSBs). Broadening examination of what works for key audiences 2. – e.g., those at risk for overweight, voters and policymakers Understanding which behavioral strategies are feasible 3. and effective for SSB reduction (don’t buy, cut back, substitute, etc.) Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Annenberg Public Policy Center Team 28 Amy Jordan, PhD, Principal Investigator Amy Bleakley, PhD, MPH, Co-Investigator Michael Hennessy, PhD, MPH, Senior Statistician Jessica Taylor Piotrowski, PhD, Research Associate Sarah Vaala, PhD, Post Doctoral Fellow Shonna Kydd, BS, Project Coordinator Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
For further information: 29 Amy Jordan ajordan@asc.upenn.edu 215-898-1553 Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012
Recommend
More recommend
