Tag: public health campaign

  • PSAs Feature Kids With Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

    PSAs Feature Kids With Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder

    A new public health campaign is challenging the idea that light drinking — like having a glass of wine or a beer — is safe during pregnancy.

    A new public service announcement campaign features children and young adults with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, questioning the assumption that light or moderate drinking during pregnancy is safe.

    The campaign was put together by the Proof Alliance, an organization that aims to educate people about the risks of consuming alcohol during pregnancy, which can lead to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The disorder causes a host of cognitive delays and other health issues.

    While the health effects of heavy drinking while pregnant are widely acknowledged, the Proof Alliance wants to challenge the idea that light drinking — like having a glass of wine or a beer — is safe. The campaign highlights articles and social media posts that argue that drinking small amounts during pregnancy is safe, and then shows actors with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder pushing back on the idea.

    “Alcohol is alcohol,” a boy says in one of the campaign’s videos.

    “Drinking any amount during pregnancy is dangerous,” another boys says. “We have fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and we are proof.”

    The campaign points to research that indicates 1 in 20 American children may have fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

    In addition to the public service announcement videos, the Proof Alliance is also running billboard ads with blunt messages like “Placentas aren’t magical booze blockers,” “Drinking during pregnancy is the leading cause of preventable brain injury in the U.S.” and “Even a little red wine can give baby brain damage.”

    The Proof Alliance also launched a website — DrinkingWhilePregnant.org — with strong images and messages designed to make a lasting impression.

    “All major medical organizations advise abstaining completely from alcohol during pregnancy — from conception through birth,” the site reads.

    “The problem with drinking alcohol during your pregnancy is that there is no amount that has been proven to be safe,” said Dr. Jacques Moritz, according to the website.

    Although experts believe that the rate of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder might be underestimated, it is very difficult to accurately measure the condition.

    “It’s impossible to know what proportion of these deficits were caused by fetal alcohol exposure,” authors of a study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found.

    “We have long thought and believed that estimates that we had previously in the U.S. were pretty gross underestimates,” Christina Chambers, a study author and a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, told CNN at the time. “It’s not an easy disorder to recognize.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Do Graphic Images On Cigarette Packaging Keep Non-Smokers Away?

    Do Graphic Images On Cigarette Packaging Keep Non-Smokers Away?

    A new study examined whether graphic warnings on cigarette packs worked to deter smoking. 

    A new study has found that cigarette advertising featuring graphic images associated with smoking – cancerous lesions and bleeding – might be as effective in influencing young people and adults to stay away from smoking as text-based labels on cigarette packs.

    As Science Daily reported, researchers presented nearly 1,000 adult smokers and middle schoolers with randomly selected advertisements, some featuring upbeat images and scaled down warnings and others showing combinations of graphic warnings and the Surgeon General’s warnings about cigarette use.

    Participants reported feeling more negatively towards cigarettes after viewing the graphic warning in either text or image form, regardless of size, than text-only warnings, which suggested to the researchers that employing such warnings may be useful in countering the more positive imagery used by the cigarette industry.

    The study, conducted primarily by researchers from Cornell University and funded by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was carried out using 451 adults who smoked and 474 middle school-aged students, all from rural or urban low-income communities in the Northeastern United States. Each participant was randomly provided with a set of six advertisements for cigarettes with different presentations.

    Some featured “positive” images – a group of happy people taking a selfie – in combination with a graphic warning label that covered 20% of the ad, while others were given ads that featured combinations of text-only warnings and more graphic warning images, as well as brand images and socially attuned imagery like the other set of ads.

    Researchers asked participants to report whether they felt any negative emotions while viewing the images, while also tracking their eye movements to determine which part of the ad they viewed and for what duration of time. What resulted was the more graphic warnings – both text and image – drew more attention from participants than text-only warnings, including the Surgeon General’s warning.

    The graphic warnings also produced more negative feelings than the text-only warnings and helped to dampen the younger participants’ opinions about the appeal of cigarettes.

    “That’s important, because there’s pretty good evidence that the visceral reactions to these warnings are a main driver of their effectiveness,” said lead author Jeff Niederdeppe, associate professor of communication at Cornell. “These ads are trying to create a positive brand image, and the graphic warnings help suppress that.”

    Niederdeppe also reported the researchers’ surprise at finding that participants felt the same degree of negative feelings towards a graphic warning that covered a small (20%) portion of a full-page advertisement as they did towards a similar ad that covered 50% of a cigarette pack. “It suggests that 20 percent coverage on an advertisement is a high enough threshold to create the negative emotion,” he explained.

    View the original article at thefix.com