Testing the effectiveness of PSAs aimed at reducing SSB consumption - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

Testing the effectiveness of PSAs aimed at reducing SSB consumption

APPC’s research

Baseline survey of Philadelphians (Summer, 2010) Recommendations for campaign approach (August, 2010) Focus Group Testing of draft campaign msgs. (October, 2010) Ad agency finalizes messages; PDPH chooses

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

2

APPC’s research

New Baseline survey (early January, 2011) Campaign launch (late January, 2011) Monitoring survey Waves 1 to 5 (February, 2011 to July, 2011) Online Message Testing (Spring, 2011)

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

3

APPC’s research

Phase 2 Campaign Development Focus Group Testing of Phase 2 messages (July, 2011) Phase 2 Campaign Launches (September, 2011) Monitoring survey (Waves 6-9) Final Report (available from PDPH)

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

4

Formative Research Findings

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

5

Predicting Intentions: The Integrative Model

Intentions Attitude Normative Pressure Self Efficacy

6

Baseline Survey

 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

7

Key Findings from Baseline

 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

8

Focus Groups

 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

9

PDPH Campaign is launched

 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

10

Key Questions for APPC

 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

11

Main limitation

 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

12

Monitoring Survey Findings

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

13

Monitoring Survey Methodology

 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

14

To what extent were Philadelphians exposed to the Get Healthy Philly media campaign messages?

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

15

To what extent were Philadelphians exposed to the Get Healthy Philly media campaign messages?

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

16

To what extent did the Get Healthy Philly media campaign reach its priority audience?

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

17

4.89 2.40 7.96 2.06 3.90

2 4 6 8 Average Exposure

Priority group

TV General Radio AA Radio Transit Posters

3.46 2.15 1.23 1.68 3.38

2 4 6 8 Average Exposure

Non priority group

TV General Radio AA Radio Transit Posters

Exposure by priority group versus others

Average Monthly Exposure (in days)

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

18

4.11 2.26 4.31 1.85 3.62 14.69

5 10 15 Average Exposure

Exposures by message type

TV General Radio AA Radio Transit Posters Total

Is exposure to the campaign associated with intention to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption?

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

19

TV General Radio AA Radio Transit Posters Adult Intention Adult Intention .09 .05 .11 .09

• .06
• Target Child

Intention .09 .00 .22* .12*

• .11*

.65* * p < .05 Exposure to Campaign Messages and Intention to Reduce SSBs

Are some messages more effective than others?

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

20

General Audience TV (The Talk)

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

21

Exposure to The Talk and SSB-related Outcomes

 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

22

Campaign Message Example: African American Audience Radio (Jump Rope)

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

23

Exposure to “Jump Rope” and SSB-Related Outcomes

 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

24

Is the length of the campaign run associated with an increased intention to substitute sugary beverages with non-sugary beverages?

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

25

5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 for Intention to Substitute Child's SSBs (1-7) 2 4 6 8 10 wave No Yes

Any TV Exposure

Predicted Values

New APPC Research

 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

26

Future Interests

1.

Ensuring messages don’t have an iatrogenic effect (perceived threat to choice and adolescents’ intention; creating a sense of “norm” that “everyone” drinks SSBs).

2.

Broadening examination of what works for key audiences – e.g., those at risk for overweight, voters and policymakers

3.

Understanding which behavioral strategies are feasible and effective for SSB reduction (don’t buy, cut back, substitute, etc.)

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

27

Annenberg Public Policy Center Team

 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

28

For further information:

Amy Jordan ajordan@asc.upenn.edu 215-898-1553

Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2012

29