|
Working with Polling Firms for the Evaluation of Mass Media Campaigns: Lessons from the Trenches
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Corinne Hodgson,
Corinne S Hodgson and Associates Inc,
corinne@cshodgson.com
|
| Abstract:
Public opinion polling is a common and useful means of evaluating mass media campaigns but has both strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include the technological and manpower resources polling firms can bring to the task, as well as their capacity to help in questionnaire and sampling design and to provide detailed and sophisticated reports for clients. But there are a number of weaknesses or issues that must also be considered, including the high cost of custom surveys, the lack of information on incomplete interviews or refusals, and the use of standard reporting templates. The strengths and weaknesses, as well as ideas for optimizing working relationships with polling firms, will be illustrated with examples from work conducted with the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario for the evaluation of tobacco control and stroke awareness mass media campaigns.
|
|
Evaluating Mass Communication Campaigns: Key Issues and Alternative Approaches
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Seth Noar,
University of Kentucky,
noar@uky.edu
|
| Abstract:
Mass media campaigns have long been a tool to promote public health. While campaigns have been studied for decades, the poor evaluation of many campaign efforts has slowed efforts to determine campaign effects. Unlike other intervention approaches that lend themselves to randomized controlled trials, health communication campaigns often involve an entire country or region, making randomization to conditions difficult if not impossible.
The purpose of the current paper is to discuss the challenges that arise when trying to evaluate campaigns, and to recommend some solutions. The proposed solutions are informed in part by an expert panel that was convened to discuss this issue at the Kentucky Conference on Health Communication in April, 2008. Areas to be addressed in the paper include the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used evaluation designs; alternative evaluation designs; time series designs; use of propensity scoring to enhance evaluation; and feasibility of randomized controlled designs.
|
| |