Download (2015). "Facebook as a medium for promoting

DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Discussion Paper: Public and media
awareness and promotion of organ
donation
Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 2
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Search strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Thought process for organ donation ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Drivers of attitudes, intent and action.................................................................................................... 4
Influencers of attitudes toward organ donation ................................................................................ 4
Predictors of positive attitudes and intent ......................................................................................... 5
Predictors of actual donation – family consent .................................................................................. 5
Sources of information and their impact ............................................................................................ 5
Effectiveness of specific initiatives ......................................................................................................... 6
Mass media campaigns ....................................................................................................................... 6
Community-based ............................................................................................................................... 8
National Campaigns using both mass media and community-based initiatives .............................. 12
Media portrayal ................................................................................................................................ 13
Discussion.............................................................................................................................................. 15
Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Successful and unsuccessful elements ............................................................................................. 16
Confounding factors when measuring results .................................................................................. 17
Applicability of included studies to New Zealand ............................................................................. 17
Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................................... 17
Design of future initiatives ................................................................................................................ 18
Prior to undertaking a campaign ...................................................................................................... 18
Discussion questions ......................................................................................................................... 19
References ............................................................................................................................................ 20
1
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Executive Summary
Research often finds that while the majority of people are in favour of organ donation, this does not
always translate into actual donations. Public awareness campaigns are used to improve organ
donation and transplantation knowledge, attitudes and intentions. International organ donation
reform programmes often include a focus on improving public awareness.
Public awareness campaigns take various forms, for example, mass media, school-, work- or
community-based, and interventions that combine several components. A systematic review and
meta-analysis found that there is a five percent effect size for campaigns (Feeley and Moon, 2009).
Combined initiatives (eg, mass media plus interpersonal components) appear to be most successful.
Awareness campaigns often coincide with either national reforms on organ donation involving
multiple strategies, or other changes (eg, hospital process change or media coverage), rather than
being individual interventions.
Media portrayal of organ donation is also important. The media is one of the public’s main sources
of organ donation information. Negative portrayal of organ donation, whether in the press or in
entertainment media, can affect transplant rates.
Almost all studies included in this discussion document were from overseas. New Zealand has a
unique cultural environment, and what works in other countries may not work here. Caution should
be used when interpreting the results of the included literature.
Before undertaking any campaign, an updated baseline of public attitudes towards organ donation is
needed. A return on investment calculation should be performed and pilot studies should be used to
test proposed messages. Robust evaluation processes to measure campaign success should be built
into the campaign strategy.
This discussion document is one part of the whole-of-system review on organ donation, including a
review on institutional arrangements. The findings from the institutional arrangements workstream
will help determine whether a public awareness campaign is an appropriate part of the
comprehensive package of initiatives recommended to the Minister at the conclusion of the review.
Discussion questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Does increased public awareness or a more informed public matter? How? Why? In what
contexts?
Do you think the findings of overseas campaigns are transferrable to the New Zealand
environment?
What type(s) of approaches do you think would work in New Zealand?
Campaign techniques can range from passive awareness-raising to active promotion of
organ donation. What do you think of the strategies behind awareness vs promotion? Is
one more suitable for the New Zealand environment?
Do you think the New Zealand media is reporting organ donation in a positive light? Is
there potential to work with them more closely? What is the media’s role?
2
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Purpose
To support the development of a package of options for improving donation rates in New Zealand,
this paper:
•
•
•
summarises the available information and research on increasing public awareness and
understanding of organ donation and transplantation through public campaigns and media
identifies potential issues in the New Zealand context
puts forward questions for discussion.
The Ministry of Health commissioned an international literature review in 2007 (Maskill and Hodges,
2007) on the effectiveness of publicity, education and social marketing initiatives targeted to the
public that aim to maximise organ and tissue donation from deceased donors. Where relevant, the
finding of the earlier literature review are included in this document.
Introduction
Research often finds that while the majority of people are in favour of organ donation, this does not
always translate into actual donations. The factors that influence these decisions may be
multifactorial and include knowledge, personal beliefs, external influences, emotional influences,
and the prevailing institutional and policy context (Li et al, 2015).
In New Zealand, it appears that most people are in favour of organ donation (Phoenix Research
2007, Three30three 2012), however New Zealand still has a low donation rate (in 2013, 8.1 per
million population compared with the highest rate - 35.1 per million population in Spain).
Individuals’ barriers to organ donation may include (Irving et al 2012, Maskill and Hodges 2007):
•
•
•
•
•
lack of knowledge about organ donation and the process
belief in ‘myths’ (eg, black market, doctors will not work as hard to save a donor, unfair
allocation, people can recover from brain death)
lack of knowledge in how to go about becoming a donor (eg, signing a register, telling family
of their wishes (as family often have the final say))
a desire to keep body intact (religious or otherwise)
an idea that their organs are not suitable – for example, Downing and Jones (2008) surveyed
6230 adults in Ohio, US (including 2631 aged 50 years or over), and found that 29.5 percent
of older adults were not willing to donate their organs, and of that subset, 48 percent of
those did not want to donate as they thought their organs were not useful because of their
age, overall health condition, or illness.
International organ donation reform programmes often include a focus on improving public
awareness and understanding of organ donation and transplantation.
Search strategy
A non-systematic search of both peer-reviewed and grey literature sources was performed in
November 2015. The search focussed on papers published after 2007 to avoid duplication with the
earlier literature review.
The study design and risk of bias in individual papers was not assessed.
3
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Papers focussing on living donation, clinical staff education and ethnic minorities were excluded as
these are the focus of other discussion papers or workstreams.
Logic of increasing individual awareness
The decision to donate one’s organs is a multi-dimensional and complex process. People’s attitudes
shape their intentions, and from those intentions come actions. The drivers behind each step of the
decision pathway can change. For example, D’Alessandro et al 2012 found that perceptions of the
benefits of organ donation and altruistic motives had the greatest impact on support (attitudes and
intentions), while respondents’ knowledge on how to register was the most important on whether
someone was actually registered (actions).
In order for individuals to move along the pathway, they may need multiple interventions that
reinforce and build on each other over time (Deedat et al 2013). Where people have limited
knowledge, campaigns might focus on changing attitudes through knowledge building and mythbusting. For people who have already made the decision to donate, campaigns might focus on
changing that intention into action (eg, by encouraging family discussions to ensure an individual’s
wishes are known).
A key step in this chain is family consent, given that it is families who ultimately decide whether
organs will be donated or not. Awareness raising initiatives may therefore also be important for
family decision-making.
Drivers of attitudes, intent and action
Influencers of attitudes toward organ donation
Irving et al (2012) conducted a systematic review of the qualitative literature to identify factors that
influence the decision to be an organ donor (both living and deceased). Eighteen studies involving
1019 participants were included, thirteen of those studies were aimed at specific ethnic or cultural
groups. The authors identified eight major themes regarding community attitudes towards organ
donation:
a. relational ties – relating to living donation
4
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
religious beliefs
cultural influences
family influences
body integrity
previous interactions with the health care system – medical mistrust, validity of brain death and
fear of early organ retrieval
g. individual’s knowledge of the organ donation process
h. major reservations about the organ donation process, even in those who support organ
donation.
Predictors of positive attitudes and intent
Accurate factual knowledge and how informed a person feels have been positively associated with
donation attitudes, willingness and donor status (Hyde and Chambers 2014, Yoo and Tian 2011,
Holman 2013). Specific knowledge that may have an impact include the concept of brain death, the
awareness of the need for organs and the number of people on waiting lists (Holman 2013).
Discussions with family or friends tend to be associated with knowledge and positive attitudes
towards organ donation (Hyde and Chambers 2014, Febrero et al 2013) and willingness to donate
(Murray et al 2013, Jeffres et al 2008).
Predictors of actual donation – family consent
Research shows that family consent to donation is a major rate limiting step. Knowing the potential
donor’s wishes and the family’s own attitude towards donation will play a part in giving consent.
Registers are one such way for people to make their intentions known, even if family consent is still
required for the donation to take place. Being on a register indicates a person’s intent and families
are therefore more likely to consent to donation (in countries that require family consent).
For example, Harrison et al (2008) stated that, where a potential donor’s family does not know of
the person’s intention to donate in America, only 50 percent of families consent, compared with 9095 percent for families of persons who have declared their intent to donate on a register. In Victoria,
Australia, 93 percent of families consented to donation in 2010 if the donor was on the register,
compared to 70 percent where the potential donor was not listed (Stephens et al, 2013).
Rodrigue et al 2009 found that next of kin were more likely to consent to donation when they had
been exposed to more donation information in the months preceding a family member’s death. This
finding highlights the potential importance of repeated exposure to organ donation information.
Sources of information and their impact
Rodrigue et al 2009 found that favourable attitudes and beliefs, being on a register and sharing
donation intentions with others were all associated with more exposure to different types of
information.
The most common source of organ donation information is media, for example, TV and newspapers
(Febrero et al 2013, Rodrigue et al 2009, Jeffres et al 2008, Martínez-Alarcón et al 2013). Other
sources include family and friends, health care professionals, personal experience, community
events and the internet.
Research has found that the source of information with the most impact on people’s attitudes
towards organ donation is likely discussions with family and friends (Febrero et al 2013, Jeffres et al
2008, Martínez-Alarcón et al 2013).
5
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Effectiveness of specific initiatives
A 2009 editorial by Waterman and Rodrigue in the journal Progress in Transplantation identified five
key themes of organ donation education:
1. early education through multiple channels – including media, internet, discussions with
family
2. unbiased and accurate education
3. tailored education – including by age, race, differing levels of health literacy
4. using education approaches with proven success ie, do not reinvent the wheel
5. well-prepared educators – including driver licencing clerks and health professionals.
Feeley and Moon (2009) conducted a meta-analytic review of communication campaigns to promote
organ donation. Findings across the included 23 campaigns indicate an overall 5 percent increase
(r=0.05, p<0.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=0.03 – 0.07) in study outcomes (eg, registrations)
compared to control groups (n = 6,647,801).
The effect size for campaigns aiming to increase registry signings or increasing family discussions was
5 percent. The effect size for campaigns aimed at increasing positive attitudes (beliefs, willingness to
donate) was not significantly greater than zero.
The study also looked at different methods of campaigns. The effects appeared to increase as the
amount of involvement increased from media-only, to media plus interpersonal (ie, direct contact),
and finally interpersonal-only). However, the 95 percent confidence intervals overlapped, so this
finding was insignificant.
The review found it unclear what factors or campaign activities are more successful than others in
promoting donation. The authors recommended that, prior to undertaking a media campaign, a
baseline should be obtained. They also recommend that interpersonal methods be used during and
after media campaigns. Media campaigns prime audiences to the messages they will encounter in
the interpersonal component.
Deedat et al (2013) conducted a systematic review of 18 studies aimed at increasing donation rates
(whether through registration, knowledge or intention) amongst ethnic minorities (mainly African
Americans or Hispanics). Mass media-only interventions reported no significant changes in intention
or willingness to register. Community-based interventions, either alone, or with mass media, were
more effective in increasing registration rates. Important factors of successful campaigns included
strong interpersonal components and immediate opportunities to register. There was some
evidence that mass media-only campaigns addressed knowledge gaps and misconceptions (ie, the
early stage of the decision process).
Mass media campaigns
Coppen et al (2010) studied the effects of education campaigns in the Netherlands over 10 years
(1998-2008). The campaign coincided with the introduction of the Organ Donation Act, an explicit
consent opt-in register. The education campaign consisted of mailouts, TV, cinema and radio
commericals, billboards, newspaper advertisements, brochures, leaflets, an internet site and
national TV shows.
The study found a strong positive correlation between donor procurement rates and consent
registration rates, suggesting that the register was successful in improving transplant rates. The
6
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
authors also suggested that the cohesive, multi-channel approach was successful in increasing
registrations. However, the authors noted that other policy measures, such as hospital processes
and new legislation, occurred at the same time and it is difficult to separate the effects. They also
found fluctuations in donor procurement rates which could not be explained by implementation of
policy measures or other changes and suggest there are unknown mechanisms also affecting donor
rates. They conclude that cohesive campaigns work, but the impact decreases over time.
Terbonssen et al (2015) studied the influence of information campaigns in Germany on specific
knowledge and willingness to donate organs. Health insurance funds are required to inform their
members about organ donation every two years. The information provided, in leaflet form, must
include an organ donor card form. The authors found that the information campaigns were not
associated with a relevant increase in specific knowledge, but were associated with an increased
rate in donor card holders.
Krekula et al (2009) studied short and long-term mass media campaigns in Sweden. The campaigns
were aimed at informing, educating, making people talk about donation and promoting donor cards
and the register. The short-term campaign lasted for a month in 2001 and involved web information,
news programmes on TV and radio, newspaper advertisements, articles and talk shows. The longterm campaign lasted for a year in 2004 and consisted of TV and radio trailers, newspaper
advertisements, debate programmes and documentaries.
The short-term campaign produced no significant improvements. The long-term campaign increased
the knowledge of the donor card from 24 to 35 percent and the registry from 19 to 40 percent
(p<0.001 for both). There was an 11-14 percent increase in registrations (p=0.043). Neither
campaign increased the number of people informing relatives of their decision at a statistically
significant level. The campaign affected middle-aged women the most.
A Northern Ireland campaign ran from February to October 2014 and included TV/cinema, radio,
digital and poster advertising. The main campaign objective was to raise awareness about organ
donation and to encourage people to talk about their donation wishes with their family and close
friends. The campaign used two concepts, one from the perspective of the donor family and the
other showing the perspective of a recipient family.
A survey of 1050 Northern Ireland adults (16 years +) conducted between November and December
2014 found that 72 percent could recall at least one campaign element. Levels of recall for the
various elements were: film adverts (61 percent); campaign posters (47 percent); radio adverts (22
percent); campaign website (16 percent); and digital adverts (7 percent). 33 percent of those
exposed to the campaign said that the campaign had encouraged them to think about their donation
wishes, 15 percent said the campaign had encouraged them to discuss their donation wishes with
family and friends and 9 percent had tried to find out more about organ donation. Other outcomes
included: 5 percent had asked a family member about their donation wishes; and, 4 percent said
that the campaign had encouraged them to put their name on the Organ Donation Register.
The survey results were also compared to a 2013 baseline survey on peoples’ views on organ
donation. Results showed a positive correlation between campaign exposure and positive attitudes
towards organ donation. 40 percent of those not currently registered said they would be very likely
or fairly likely to put their name on the register in the near future, compared with 38 percent in
2013). 43 percent were unsure, compared with 39 percent in 2013, and 18 percent were not very
likely or definitely not likely to do so (23 percent in 2013). 41 percent had talked to family and
friends about organ donation (38 percent in 2013).
7
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Quick et al (2012) evaluated the effectiveness of a direct-mail marketing campaign to increase donor
registrations in 18 year olds residing in Illinois, US. 139,356 individuals received either a letter from
the Secretary of State, a brochure from the Secretary of State, or both. A total of 6908 new
registrations were received as a result. The letter only, and the letter plus brochure were more
effective than the brochure only in generating registrations (p<0.001 for both comparisons), possibly
due to the fact that the letter was personally addressed to the recipient, rather than a generic
brochure. There was no significant difference between the letter only and the letter plus brochure in
generating registrations. Costs per registration varied between USD$6.41 for the letter only, through
to USD$13.19 for the brochure only.
Similar to the above study, Quick et al (2015) evaluated the effectiveness of a direct-mail marketing
campaign to increase donor registrations in 18 year olds residing in Illinois, US. In order to identify
the most effective framing device, four different brochures were distributed framed from the
vantage point of: organ donors, organ recipients, individuals awaiting a transplant or a combination
of all three vantage points. 60,000 mailouts were sent, resulting in 3583 new registrations. The
authors found that individuals register at a statistically significant greater rate following exposure to
the combination vantage point (7.73 percent registration rate, compared to the other frames, all of
which were between 5.61 and 5.94 percent). The cost per registration was USD$5.85 for the
combination frame (most effective brochure) taking into account production and distribution of the
brochures.
Rodrigue et al (2014) assessed the impact of different one-minute donation videos on American
adults. The video featuring a paediatric transplant recipient had the most favourable impact on
organ donor willingness. Other videos featured a patient waiting for a transplant, a patient who dies
while on the waiting list, the family of an organ donor and a national video on donation.
LaVail et al (2010) analysed audiovisual Public Service Announcements and suggested that appeals
to promote organ donation should be implicit, maintaining the individual’s freedom of choice. Being
explicit removes this ‘choice’ and may be less effective.
Studies included in the 2007 Ministry of Health literature review also reported mixed results with
mass-media campaigns.
Community-based
Community-based campaigns are conducted in community settings, for example, workplaces,
schools, driver licencing offices and social media.
Li et al (2015) conducted a systematic review on community-based interventions and willingness to
be a donor, and included 63 studies. The types of interventions included were advertising, active
learning, community partnerships, driver licencing office interventions, education at schools and
workplace. Overall, the authors found the quality of evidence was low and risk of bias was high. The
authors found that participants were more likely to commit as donors (relative risk 1.70, p=0.002,
95% CI=1.22 - 2.36) and had higher levels of willingness to donate (standardized mean difference
0.29; p=0.04, 95% CI=0.01 - 0.56). There was no significant effect on the intention to donate (relative
risk 1.19, p=0.14, 95% CI=0.94 - 1.51).
Salim et al (2010) studied the effects of a combined mass media and community-based interpersonal
campaign on donor rates in California, US. The initiative consisted of making the organ donation
registry signup available online, media advocacy (public services announcements, news conferences,
newspaper opinion-editorial pages), community outreach in federal buildings, universities,
companies and public libraries. The campaign promoted family discussion.
8
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Two years before the campaign, and two years after the campaign were studied for comparison.
Consent for donation increased from 47.5 percent to 51.0 percent (p=0.064) and family declines
decreased from 44.1 percent to 32.6 percent (p<0.0001). The authors warn that there is no way to
directly attribute the results to the campaign.
Feeley and Kruegler et al (2015) studied the effects of four ‘challenge’ campaigns in 2012 and 2013.
Each campaign was one month long and teams (ranging from 1-20 people, with a median of seven
members) completed for monetary rewards and public recognition. Outreach efforts included use of
information tables, social media and direct approaches.
Across the four campaigns, 107 teams were formed that saw 2286 new registrations, an average of
21 new registrations per team (although 40 percent of teams achieved no new registrations). Teams
that received higher numbers of registrations relied, almost exclusively, on face-to-face
communication and carried physical enrolment cards with them during the campaign. The findings
indicate that interpersonal communication was more effective than relying on social media, and
having enrolment cards on hand are more effective (as cards are available immediately, rather than
relying on people to act at a later point).
Morgan et al (2011) analysed the impact of two different campaign strategies at US universities: a
media-only campaign and a media plus interpersonal outreach campaign. The media component
consisted of newspaper and radio advertisements, billboards and postcards within the university.
The interpersonal outreach components consisted of staffed tables at student unions, faculty clubs
and other central sites. The staff handed out free merchandise and brochures using this as an
opportunity to ask passers-by about organ donation. The study utilised a pre-test/post-test design,
and a total of 1131 individuals responded (51 percent students, 35 percent staff, 11 percent faculty
and 3 percent administrators).
The percentage of individuals who had signed a donor card increased 12 percent from pre-test to
post-test in the media plus outreach campaign, 6 percent in the mass media only, and 5 percent in
the control. Similarly, the percentage of individuals who discussed organ donation with family
members increased 18 percent from pre-test to post-test in the media plus outreach campaign,
compared with 9 percent in the media only and 12 percent in the control (this result was not
statistically significant). The authors found that the mass media only campaign was not any better
than the control.
In New Zealand, a group of students, as part of a public relations paper at the University of Waikato,
ran a campaign aimed at encouraging people to talk to their family about organ donation
(three30three, 2012). In “Spill the Beans”, the three-day campaign included videos on YouTube,
Facebook pages, ‘freeze-mobs’, ambassadors and wallet cards. In a survey following the campaign,
they found that 93 percent of people had told their parents of their wishes (compared to 67 percent
at the baseline) and 89 percent knew their parents were responsible for the decision (compared to
68 percent at the baseline).
Workplace
Morgan et al (2010) studied the effects of low and high intensity campaigns in workplaces. Lowintensity campaigns consisted of media-only interventions (brochures with a register sign-up card
and myth-buster material distributed via paychecks, email, intraoffice mail and cafeteria tables, plus
newsletters). High-intensity campaigns consisted of the above and staffed tables in central locations
such as the cafeteria. The staff distributed free merchandise and offered to be witnesses for signing
donor cards. The staff also distributed brochures on how to talk to family members. Campaigns
9
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
lasted 10 weeks, with 15 companies each in low-intensity, high-intensity and control groups. Highintensity workplaces had a 6 percent increase in registrations and low-intensity campaigns resulted
in a 3 percent increase, compared with control sites (p<0.001). Both forms of campaigns led to
increases in attitudes and knowledge.
School-based campaigns
A systematic review of classroom education identified 15 studies from nine countries (Li et al 2013),
where most programmes consisted of one or two classroom sessions. All studies included found a
positive effect on the outcome they were measuring (increased knowledge, attitudes towards organ
donation, or increased family discussions). However, there was variable and inconsistent effects on
intent to donate or register. No studies measured any change in registrations or actual donations.
The authors were unable to identify what specific elements of the programmes were associated with
effectiveness as there was insufficient information.
Rios et al (2011) surveyed 283 secondary school teachers in Spain to determine acceptance of an
educational programme on organ donation. 54 percent of the respondents believed that it would be
appropriate to introduce an education programme in secondary schools. The majority (71 percent)
believed that a collaborator from the Regional Transplant Team would be the best person to carry
out the programme, with only 11 percent saying a teacher would be the most appropriate.
Studies included in the 2007 Ministry of Health literature review also found positive outcomes with
school-based campaigns.
Driver licencing offices
Harrison et al (2008) studied the effects of a 1-hour training intervention for 76 driver licencing
clerks in the US, focussed on the new registry, information about organ donation and
communication strategies for dealing with the public. Registration rates were 14 percent higher in
counties with trained clerks compared with controls, and were 9 percent higher than statewide
rates. Training significantly increased clerks’ knowledge, beliefs, behaviours and intentions towards
donation.
King et al (2012) analysed an initiative consisting of point-of-decision materials (including posters
and cards) at certain driver licencing offices in Michigan, US. Registration rates for three to six
months after implementation of the campaign doubled. Authors found that the cost per registration
was USD$1.34.
Harrison et al (2010) studied the effects of a combined mass media, community-based interpersonal
campaign on donor rates in Michigan, US. The initiative consisted of mass media (billboards and
radio), point-of-decision materials at driver licencing offices (posters, cards), and volunteer-staffed
on-site events the driver licencing offices. These components were in waves – mass media and
materials the first two months, materials and on-site events in months three and four, and finally,
materials only for the following months. Compared to baseline data, registrations increased 200 to
300 percent in intervention areas. The addition of the interpersonal on-site component greatly
increased the rates. Costs per registration ranged from USD$14.98 to USD$34.74 (King et al, 2012).
Quick et al (2013) looked at an American campaign focussed on driver licencing offices (20
intervention sites and 20 control sites), consisting of mass media (radio and outdoor advertising),
interpersonal component (volunteers and driver licencing clerks), and point of decision materials
(brochures, posters) – introduced in phases. The authors found that the campaign mitigated
decreasing registration rates in facilities with both low and high historic registration rates. The
results partially supported combining various message strategies (ie, media, interpersonal and
10
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
materials). However, the results suggested that the mass media and point of decision materials
taken separately did not significantly reduce the decreasing registration rates – the authors caution
that the return on investment may not be sufficient.
Social media
Social media (eg, Facebook, YouTube) is often used to enhance mass media and community
campaigns. Studies included in this section have a main focus on social media, however may involve
other components (eg, interpersonal).
Cameron et al (2013) studied the effects of Facebook’s new option to specify organ donor as part of
a user’s profile in the US. This option was initially offered to 30 percent of US users. Educational links
were offered to those considering the status and if a user specified ‘yes’, they were offered a link to
their state registry. User’s ‘friends’ were also notified of their new organ donor status. On the first
day of the new option, registration rose 21-fold. The study looked at the 13-day period from when
the option was rolled out. The increase in registrations declined over the 13-day period, and by the
last day were only 1.1 times the baseline. There was a net 6-fold increase in registrations over the
13-day period.
In a follow-up paper, Cameron (2015) suggests that the initiative was so successful as it moved the
discussion from the motor vehicle licencing environment (where most registrations occur) to a more
‘comfortable’ place among friends. The author suggests that Facebook appeals to social norms
among groups who likely have similar behaviours, therefore it gives an emotional nudge to
encourage friends to imitate observed behaviour that they were inclined to pursue anyway.
Brzezinski and Klikowicz (2015) studied the effects of a five year Facebook campaign in Poland.
Poland has an ‘opt-out’ register, so numbers of registrations were not an appropriate measure to
analyse. The Facebook activities are part of a campaign ‘club’ aimed at raising awareness and
education of organ donation – whose main outlet in the internet (ie, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram,
YouTube). The Facebook page had 137,000 ‘fans’, and at the time of writing the paper (May 2014),
was the number one organ donation promotion page in the world. 27.3 percent of the club’s
members found out about the campaign through Facebook. The authors suggest that two way
relations, spread over time, are required for social media to effectively engage and exert influence
on the public. The authors were unable to assess how the campaign affected the actual numbers of
transplantations.
This Facebook option is available in New Zealand, and the link takes viewers to the New Zealand
Transport Authority’s information page on organ donation and how to declare your intentions on
your driver licence.
In a letter to the editor, Kalra (2012) cautioned that people may register to be organ donors due to
peer pressure from their social network.
Stefanone et al (2012) looked at three different online media campaigns - traditional online adverts
on Facebook and Google; student-seeded campaigns on social networking sites; and challenge
campaigns on social networking sites where teams competed for monetary prizes related to
numbers of new registrations.
Over three years, the campaigns combined resulted in 35,715 unique visits to the project’s website,
but only 196 new registrants. Use of student seeders and challenge campaigns resulted in greater
attention to the website, donor card requests and subsequent returns. These results suggest that
campaigns with an interpersonal message produce a larger effect on donation actions than
11
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
traditional mass-media messages. Authors suggest that traditional online advertising could be used
to increase awareness, while advocates (eg, student seeders and challenge campaigns) could be
used to facilitate conversations and move individuals to action.
D’Alessandro et al (2012) analysed an 18-month social media and interpersonal campaign aimed at
college student members of a student organisation in the US. The campaign was intended as a viral
communication process designed to spread the word, motivate others to participate in the social
spreading of information, and to get people to register. The campaign had 20,421 website visitors,
4473 Facebook members, 1189 YouTube video submissions with 164,000 views, 19,623 visits to a
state’s organ donor registration page and 9,000 actual donor registrations. Within the student
organisation, donor registrations increased 28 percent.
Hitt et al (2014) analysed the effects of adding a social networking component to an existing
University challenge campaign. The original campaign ran for 6 weeks every year and challenged two
rival universities to get the most donor registrations. The campaign used radio announcements,
flyers, posters, information tables and blood drives to help spread the word. Social media advertising
supplemented the campaign after the first year, adding Facebook advertisements the second year
and in the third year, also adding Facebook fan pages and widgets that people could post to
Facebook, twitter, blogs etc.
The authors found no significant difference between direct and social network routes for visits to the
organ donation registration page. However, as the numbers of registrations increased 101 percent in
the second year (from 224 sign-ups to 451 sign-ups) and 289 percent in the third year (to 1756 signups), this indicates that social media was effective in enhancing the campaign.
National Campaigns using both mass media and community-based initiatives
An Australian campaign “To Donate Life, Discuss It Today – OK” conducted in 2010-2012 consisted of
television, print and outdoor advertising; online communications (including a campaign website,
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter); media publicity (including radio and editorials); and community
outreach (including information stands, events and speaking engagements). The campaign was
aimed at increasing knowledge, promoting family and community discussion, and myth busting.
Evaluation of the campaign showed there was a 74 percent increase in registrations compared to the
corresponding period in 2009, and the positive trend continued months after the campaign ended.
Levels of family discussion increased by 10 percent (to 58 percent), knowledge of family wishes
increased by five percent (to 56 percent), and awareness that family consent is requested prior to
donation increased by six percent (to 70 percent) (Australian National Audit Office, 2015). There was
a high level of media coverage of the campaign and the project website received 103,414 visits.
Facebook fan numbers increased from 898 prior to the campaign to 17,700 (McCoy, 2011).
A campaign in Scotland “A wee chat about organ donation” conducted between 2012 and 2013
consisted of television, print and outdoor advertisements; community outreach (including
information stands and events using real-life stories); direct mail; and a project website that allowed
people to publicly celebrate their support. The campaign was aimed at getting people to talk about
organ donation and focussed less on death and more on life.
The project estimated that an additional 621,740 people may have talked about organ donation (out
of an adult population of 4,441,000). At one point, the percentage of people who said they had
talked to friends or family about organ donation increased from 40 percent to 54 percent. There was
a 57 percent increase in text-to-register responses, compared to a previous campaign held in
12
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2011/12. Web registrations increased by 26 percent during the campaign’s run, compared to the
same period in 2011/12. 54 percent of new visitors to the website went on to join the register.
Media portrayal
As the media is one of the general public’s main sources of organ donation information (Morgan et
al, 2007), how organ donation is portrayed in the media is very important.
News media portrayal of organ donation
Quick et al (2009) analysed news coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC networks between 1990 and 2005.
The authors found that approximately two to four broadcasts surfaced per month. The majority of
stories were positive. However, less than 10 percent of the broadcasts indicated how to become a
potential organ donor.
Reporting of negative organ donation news stories in the media is linked to drops in transplantation
rates. Negative stories, such as manipulation of the system and ‘harvesting’ of organs, reinforce the
public’s negative beliefs in organ donation. If a person was hesitant to become an organ donor as
they thought their organs might be harvested, reporting of stories in the media, which has
widespread reach, would reinforce the person’s fears.
In 1980, a UK primetime current affairs show “Panorama” aired on BBC and claimed that two in
every 100 people in Britain are being labelled dead when they could make a full recovery. It took 15
months for donor referral rates to recover (Misterka et al, 2010).
Misterka et al (2010) examined the effects of the national media in Poland on transplantation rates.
In 2007, there was a series of negative events reported connected with transplantation. The events
included a transplant surgeon being accused of murder and misconduct in transplant operations.
The reports were highly emotive and used terms such as “Doctor Death” and “organ trafficking”.
As a result, 2.5 months after the reports, the number of transplantation fell by 56 percent. A survey
found that over 10 percent of Poles changes their opinion of organ donation from positive to
negative as a result of the media report.
In Germany, doctors at multiple transplant centres allegedly manipulated the organ transplant
allocation system in order to help their patients get donor livers more quickly. The issue gained
widespread media coverage across the EU. Donation rates decreased by 20-40 percent in Germany
since the first case came to light in 2012 (Shaw et al, 2013).
Media advocacy
In Venezuela, the national transplant organisation implemented a strategy for working with the
media, including a media hotline that promptly responds to request for information, training
programmes, relationship building, and materials. Pacheco et al (2009) analysed the media coverage
of transplantation from 2005 to 2007. Over 80 percent of stories were of a positive nature. They
found that media presence increased by 200 percent in 2007. They found a positive correlation
between the number of stories in the media and the numbers of registrations (R2 = 0.9713), and the
number of deceased donor transplants (R2 = 0.8904). Deceased donor transplants rose from 3.4 per
million in 2005 to 6.8 per million in 2007. The number of family refusals fell from 41 percent in 2005
to 31 percent in 2007.
In 2005, a campaign was launched by “Donate Life California” to coincide with the first online organ
donor registry in California. Media advocacy was identified as an important part of the campaign. A
media kit was created to assist reporters, which included key messages about the campaign, fact
sheets, statistics and story ideas. The campaign also held simultaneous news conferences and
13
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
offered in-person briefings with major newspapers. They found that the media advocacy efforts also
allowed the team to identify and build relationships with influential reporters.
The Spanish National Transplant Organisation has a communication policy for the media based on
four principles aimed at assisting the media to handle information about donation and
transplantation appropriately:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
A 24-hour telephone line available for consultation;
Easy and permanent access to the media;
Connection with journalists built through dedicated meetings aimed at learning about
mutual needs; and
Delivery of messages with no intermediaries.
Spain utilises the media to promote organ donation through the dissemination of positive news.
Each year Spain conducts a training seminar in organ donation which is aimed at journalists to
provide first-hand information about organ donation and transplantation processes (DonateLife
Network, 2013).
Entertainment media portrayal of organ donation
As entertainment media presents fictionalised narrative accounts, these are cognitively processed
differently than factual information. There is evidence that viewers suspend counterargument and
become fully absorbed in the storytelling (Morgan et al 2007).
Harbaugh et al (2011) analysed all US primetime medical dramas with transplant themes between
2008 and 2010. Episodes containing any negative message and any positive message were viewed by
similar numbers of households (155 million and 145 million respectively). However, episodes
containing only negative messages had over twice the household views compared to episodes
containing only positive messages (8.4 million vs 4.1 million, p = 0.01).
The most common misrepresentations of transplantation were doctors gaming the system and
doctors portrayed as ‘vultures’ who are eager for patients to die to procure their organs.
Declarations of premature death, donor bodies being treated with dispassion and black markets
were also portrayed.
Morgan et al (2009) surveyed viewers of four US television dramas depicting organ donation
storylines. The authors found that viewers who were not organ donors prior to watching the
programmes were more likely to decide to donate organs if the programme explicitly encourage
donation, portrayed characters revealing how they had become donors, and discussed the merits of
donating. Viewers were more likely to become an organ donor if they were emotionally involved in
the narrative. The authors found that, when an episode focusses on an organ donation myth,
viewers were the most likely to report accepting the myth as accurate.
Khalil and Rintamaki (2014) surveyed viewers of a US drama episode focussed solely on organ
donation, presented in an accurate way. They found the more entertaining a viewer found the
programme to be, the more likely viewers were to positively discuss organ donation with others (p <
0.001). This is a similar finding to Morgan et al (2009) above. Viewers with high recall of the storyline
were more likely to reject myths about organ donation and to positively discuss organ donation with
others.
Morgan et al (2007) identified all entertainment television shows on major network shows from
2004-2005. They found that the majority of shows portrayed myths of organ donation (eg,
14
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
corruption in the medical and organ allocation systems). Rarely was organ donation portrayed in a
positive way.
Yoo and Tian (2011) studied the effects on exposure to entertainment TV programmes (showing
mainly negative portrayals of organ donation) and organ donation intentions in 429 American
college students. They found that recall of TV programmes significantly predicts people’s perception
of medical mistrust, which in turn, negatively predicts attitudes towards organ donation.
Journalist knowledge and attitudes
As media is one of the main source of organ donation information for the general public, it is useful
to investigate the knowledge and attitudes of journalists, as they will be the people reporting the
stories. Journalists need to have accurate knowledge regarding organ donation, and report it in a
clear way to prevent the spread of misinformation.
Martínez-Alarcón et al (2010 and 2011) surveyed 126 Spanish journalism students on their attitudes
and knowledge towards organ donation. The authors found that 78 percent of students would be
willing to donate their organs. However, the authors also found that only 43 percent of students
understood the concept of brain death and 13 percent believed that a person with brain death can
recover and lead a normal life.
These findings indicate that journalists may not always possess the knowledge required to report an
organ donation story accurately.
Discussion
Due to the nature of the interventions studied, the majority of papers included are before-after
studies, which are considered less reliable and more at risk of bias than stronger designs (eg,
randomised controlled trials).
Effectiveness
Mass media
Evidence on the effectiveness of media-based campaigns in increasing knowledge, family discussions
or registrations is mixed. Media campaigns may increase knowledge or registrations (eg, Coppen et
al 2010, Public Health Agency 2015, Krekula et al 2009), however Coppen et al (2010) noted that it
was difficult to separate the effects of the media campaign with other policy measures occurring at
the same time, such as hospital processes. Direct mail-outs to teenagers appear to increase
registrations (Quick et al, 2012 and 2015).
Community-based
Li et al 2015 found that community-based interventions may be effective in increasing the
commitment, but not intentions to donate. However, the overall risk of bias was high, and this may
have led to overestimation of the relative treatment effects of these interventions.
Workplace interventions appear to be have some positive effect. Campaigns with an interpersonal
components were more successful than a passive, media-based approach (Morgan et al 2010 and
2011).
School-based campaigns are effective at increasing knowledge and family discussions, however the
effects on intent to donate or register are inconsistent (Li et al 2013). The interpersonal component
is likely one of the reasons these campaigns are often successful. Students are actively involved in
the learning and have the opportunity to ask questions.
15
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Interventions at driver licencing offices also appear to have a positive effect on increasing
registrations.
Included studies suggest that social media is effective in reaching large populations and increasing
registrations (Cameron et al 2013 and D’Alessandro et al). It is likely that social media would be an
effective way of spreading the word of campaigns.
Combined interventions (generally mass media and community-based interpersonal campaigns) are
effective in increasing registrations, discussions with family and knowledge (Salim et al 2010,
Harrison et al 2010, Quick et al 2013, McCoy 2011, Scottish Government 2013). The interpersonal
component may enhance the media component (Feeley and Moon 2009, Harrison et al 2010, Quick
et al 2013, Deedat et al 2013). It is likely that the media component ‘primes’ the audience, and the
interpersonal component reinforces the message and drives people to action (Feeley and Moon
2009).
Media portrayal and guidelines
The way organ donation is portrayed on news media may affect transplantation rates. Negative
portrayals, such as those detailed in Misterka et al 2010, directly affected rates. Strategies aimed at
improving the way transplant organisations work with the media appear to be effective.
Entertainment media also affects viewers’ attitudes towards organ donation. The more emotionally
involved a viewer, the more the story has an effect on the viewer. However, organ donation is often
portrayed negatively in entertainment media (Morgan et al 2007) and can be a source of, or
reinforce peoples belief in, myths (such as a ‘black market’ for organs).
Successful and unsuccessful elements
Community-based interventions with an interpersonal component, either alone, or with mass media,
may be more effective in increasing registration rates than media-only campaigns.
Messaging
Prior to the successful “Wee Chat” campaign in Scotland, campaigns were focussed on death and
emotional pain. For example, one campaign featured the face of a young girl and asked viewers
whether they wanted to “Kill Jill”, and gave two options of “yes” or “no” (indicating that if you
picked “no”, you would donate your organs to save her). However, research showed that people
were becoming desensitised, and also people found that loading messages with heavy emotions
made it harder for them to discuss organ donation. Therefore the “Wee Chat” campaign was
focussed on positivity and life with gentle support, rather than death, guilt and ultimatums.
The UK Behavioural Insights Team (the “Nudge Unit”) conducted a randomised controlled trial in the
UK (Harper et al, 2013) analysed the effects of different types of messages on whether people signed
up to the national register. The trial ran for five weeks, during which time over one million people
saw one of the eight messages. Some of the variations (eg, adding a picture to an otherwise identical
message) represented relatively small changes.
The best-performing message drew on ideas of reciprocity and fairness by asking people “If you
needed an organ transplant, would you have one? If so please help others.” If this message were to
be used over the whole year, it would lead to approximately 96,000 extra registrations completed,
compared with the control condition. One message actually resulted in a decrease in sign-up rates
compared to the control (a message stating the social norm combined with a picture of a group of
people – however, the same message combined with a different picture produced results greater
16
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
than the control). The study emphasised the importance of testing and trialling interventions to
determine which intervention is going to have the biggest impact.
Population considerations
The success of different types of interventions will vary according to the population. Social media
will be more popular with younger generations, as they are more likely to use such sites.
Downing and Jones (2008) held two focus groups of adults aged 50 to 70 years in Ohio, US. Older
adults indicated that brochures were the best way to educate their group, as brochures provided
more information than mass media messages (eg, TV or radio).
Gender may also affect how well messages are received. Females are more inclined to talk about
emotional issues, such as organ donation, and are more likely to seek health information (Krekula et
al, 2009). Krekula et al 2009 suggests that reaching the male population may require a different
strategy, possibly presenting information in a more factual and less emotional way.
Confounding factors when measuring results
Campaigns are sometimes part of a wider national reform on organ donation. For example, the
Australian National Reform Programme had nine measures, of which community awareness was
only one (Australian National Audit Office, 2015). Therefore, there are often other changes occurring
at the same time as campaigns (eg, policy changes, hospital process changes). It is hard to separate
out the effects of the campaigns alone. It is possible that the effect sizes reported in some studies
may be somewhat attributable to changes outside the campaign.
Most evaluations of campaigns were conducted soon after the campaign had ended (eg, within a
year). Therefore the sustained effects of campaigns is generally unknown. Most studies measured
increases in registrations, which has a definite end-point (people are unlikely to unregister), so the
authors did not need to measure the effects years after the campaigns had ended.
Applicability of included studies to New Zealand
In this literature review, only one (non-peer reviewed) study in New Zealand was identified
(three30three, 2012). New Zealand has a unique cultural environment, and what works in other
countries may not work here. Baseline views and pilot studies to test any campaign messages will be
important.
Many studies included in this paper used registrations as a measure of effectiveness. New Zealand
does not have an official register, so the applicability of those studies to New Zealand is uncertain.
While some studies may demonstrate positive increases in registrations, the studies do not tend to
measure actual donation rates. However, being on a register indicates a person’s intent and families
are therefore more likely to consent to donation.
Conclusions and recommendations
While there seem to be positive effects from campaigns, effects tend to be small. The meta-analysis
conducted by Feeley and Moon (2009) found that while campaigns aimed at increasing registrations
or family discussions were successful at a statistically significant level of five percent, campaigns
aimed at increasing positive attitudes (beliefs, willingness to donate) were not significantly greater
than zero. The sustained effects of campaigns is generally unknown.
Campaigns that involve multiple components (both mass media and interpersonal) appear to be
more effective. Mass media components may be useful in increasing knowledge and debunking
myths, in other words, influencing an individual’s attitude to organ donation, there is little evidence
17
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
on whether they change an individual’s intention to donate (Deedat et al, 2013). Interpersonal
components are often successful in translating a person’s intentions into action (Li et al, 2015).
Media campaigns can help ‘prime’ the audience for the interpersonal component. . Interpersonal
methods reassure individuals’ decision to donate, provide the means to pledge one’s donation
wishes and communicate to individuals the ideal standard of altruism (Feeley and Moon, 2009).
While public awareness campaigns increase registration rates and attitudes, it should be kept in
mind that Spain, often considered as a ‘world leader’ in organ donation, increased their donation
rates by almost 250 percent between 1989 and 2013 without significant advertising campaigns. The
Spanish model focuses mainly on hospital processes, however does pay close attention to the media
(including a communications policy) and uses the media to disseminate positive news stories
(DonateLife Network, 2013).
This discussion document is one part of the whole-of-system review on organ donation, including a
review on institutional arrangements. The findings from the institutional arrangements workstream
will help determine whether a public awareness campaign is an appropriate part of the
comprehensive package of initiatives recommended to the Minister at the conclusion of the review.
Design of future initiatives
As evidence shows that initiatives with multiple components (ie, mass media and interpersonal) are
more effective, future initiatives should involve more than one component. Social media should be
employed alongside more traditional methods to ensure a wider reach.
Sustained messaging, over a number of years, may be required. As New Zealand does not have a
register, there is no ‘end-point’ officially stating a person’s intentions which will indicate that a
campaign has been successful and can end (compared to other countries where signing a register
could be seen as an end-point). Additionally, as found in Rodrigue et al 2009, next of kin were more
likely to consent to donation when they had been exposed to more donation information in the
months preceding a family member’s death, highlighting the importance of repeated exposure to
organ donation information.
Due to New Zealand’s individualistic society, awareness-raising campaigns may be more effective
than actively promoting organ donation.
One of the main barriers to donation is family either being unaware of a potential donor’s wishes or
overriding those wishes, therefore campaigns often focus on encouraging family discussions. New
Zealand campaigns undertaken by Organ Donation New Zealand have also focussed on this message.
This should continue to be a focus, unless baseline results indicate a more common barrier that
should be addressed first.
Prior to undertaking a campaign
In order to design an effective campaign, the following should occur:
-
Identify a current baseline of New Zealand public views to determine current attitudes to organ
donation and to determine what barriers exist. This baseline can be used to pinpoint what to
focus any campaigns on (eg, if people are unaware that family have veto rights on whether their
organs are donated, then discussions with family will be an important focus). The baseline
would determine where in the intervention logic a campaign should focus on (eg, improving
attitudes or solidifying intentions).
18
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
-
Use focus groups or pilot studies to identify the best approaches and to test messages of any
campaigns before launching nationwide.
Determine the likely return on investment of any campaign using projected donation rate
increases upon current baselines and medical cost savings resulting from transplants.
Ensure there is a robust evaluation process in place that will measure a campaign’s success,
using metrics such as public opinion surveys.
Discussion questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Does increased public awareness or a more informed public matter? How? Why? In what
contexts?
Do you think the findings of overseas campaigns are transferrable to the New Zealand
environment?
What type(s) of approaches do you think would work in New Zealand?
Campaign techniques can range from passive awareness-raising to active promotion of organ
donation. What do you think of the strategies behind awareness vs promotion? Is one more
suitable for the New Zealand environment?
Do you think the New Zealand media is reporting organ donation in a positive light? Is there
potential to work with them more closely? What is the media’s role?
19
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
References
Allrich H, Dougall E, Heneghan D. Donate Life California: A Campaign Launch Case Study. Cases in
Public Health Communication & Marketing. 2007 June.
Australian National Audit Office. (2015). “Organ and Tissue Donation: Community Awareness,
Professional Education and Family Support.” The Auditor-General ANAO Report No.33 2014–15
Performance Audit.
Brzezinski, M. and P. Klikowicz (2015). "Facebook as a medium for promoting statement of intent for
organ donation: 5-years of experience." Annals of Transplantation 20: 141-146.
Cameron, A. M., et al. (2013). "Social media and organ donor registration: the Facebook effect."
American Journal of Transplantation 13(8): 2059-2065.
Cameron, A. M. (2015). "Social Media and Organ Donation: The Facebook Effect." Journal of Legal
Medicine 36(1): 39-44.
Coppen, R., et al. (2010). "Donor education campaigns since the introduction of the Dutch organ
donation act: increased cohesion between campaigns has paid off." Transplant International 23(12):
1239-1246.
D'Alessandro, A. M., et al. (2012). "The impact of social, cognitive and attitudinal dimensions on
college students' support for organ donation." American Journal of Transplantation 12(1): 152-161.
Deedat, S., et al. (2013). "What are effective approaches to increasing rates of organ donor
registration among ethnic minority populations: a systematic review." BMJ Open 3(12).
DonateLife Network. (2013). “Fact sheet: International approaches to organ donation reform”.
Organ and Tissue Authority, Australian Government.
Downing, K. and L. L. Jones (2008). "Designing an educational strategy for increasing organ donor
registration among older adults." Progress in Transplantation 18(4): 290-296.
Feeley, T. H. and S.-I. Moon (2009). "A meta-analytic review of communication campaigns to
promote organ donation." Communication Reports 22(2): 63-73.
Feeley, T. H. and J. Kruegler (2015). "Promoting organ donation through challenge campaigns."
Progress in Transplantation 25(2): 176-181.
Harbaugh, C. et al. (2011). "Portrayal of organ donation and transplantation on American primetime
television." Clinical Transplantation 25(4): E375-380.
Harper, H., et al. (2013). “Applying Behavioural Insights to Organ Donation: preliminary results from
a randomised controlled trial”. Cabinet Office, United Kingdom.
Harrison, T. R., et al. (2008). "The challenges of social marketing of organ donation: News and
entertainment coverage of donation and transplantation." Health Marketing Quarterly 25(1-2): 3365.
Harrison, T. R., et al. (2008). "Effects of information, education, and communication training about
organ donation for gatekeepers: clerks at the Department of Motor Vehicles and organ donor
registries." Progress in Transplantation 18(4): 301-309.
20
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Harrison, T. R., et al. (2010). "Promoting the Michigan Organ Donor Registry: Evaluating the impact
of a multifaceted intervention utilizing media priming and communication design." Health
Communication 25(8): 700-708.
Hitt, R., et al. (2014). "Traditional vs. social networking routes for organ donation registrations in a
competition-based campaign." Journal of Communication in Healthcare 7(3): 197-207.
Hyde, M. K. and S. K. Chambers (2014). "Information sources, donation knowledge, and attitudes
toward transplant recipients in Australia." Progress in Transplantation 24(2): 169-177.
Irving et al (2012). Factors that influence the decision to be an organ donor: a systematic review of
the qualitative literature. Nephrol Dial Transplant (2012) 27: 2526–2533.
Jeffres, L. W., et al. (2008). "Communication as a predictor of willingness to donate one's organs: an
addition to the Theory of Reasoned Action." Progress in Transplantation 18(4): 257-262.
Kalra, G. S. (2012). "Facebook and organ transplantation." International Journal of Organ
Transplantation Medicine 3(3): 133.
Khalil, G. E. and Rintamaki, L. S. (2014). "A televised entertainment-education drama to promote
positive discussion about organ donation." Health Education Research 29(2): 284-296.
King, A. J., et al. (2012). "The "tell us now" campaign for organ donation: Using message immediacy
to increase donor registration rates." Journal of Applied Communication Research 40(3): 229-246.
Krekula, L. G., et al. (2009). "From words to action--influence of two organ donation campaigns on
knowledge and formal decision making." Clinical Transplantation 23(3): 343-350.
LaVail, K. H., et al. (2010). "The persuasive effects of audiovisual PSAs to promote organ donation:
The mediating role of psychological reactance." Communication Studies 61(1): 46-69.
Li, A. H., et al. (2013). "Adolescent classroom education on knowledge and attitudes about deceased
organ donation: a systematic review." Pediatric Transplantation 17(2): 119-128.
Li A.T., et al. (2015). “Community-Based Interventions and Individuals' Willingness to be a Deceased
Organ Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Transplantation 99(12): 2634-43.
Martínez-Alarcón, L. et al. (2010). "Evaluation of the law of presumed consent after brain death by
Spanish journalism students." Transplantation Proceedings 42(8): 3109-3112.
Martínez-Alarcón, L. et al. (2011). "Do future journalists have a favorable attitude toward deceased
donation?" Transplantation Proceedings 43(1): 52-54.
Martínez-Alarcón, L., et al. (2013). "Factor analysis of sources of information on organ donation and
transplantation in journalism students." Transplantation Proceedings 45(10): 3579-3581.
Maskill, C. and Hodges, I. (2007). “Effectiveness of public education and social marketing initiatives
to increase organ and tissue donation: review of literature.” Ministry of Health to Health Select
Committee: Report 3, New Zealand.
McCoy, L. (2011). “To Donate Life, Discuss It Today – OK” Campaign. 2011 Golden Target Awards
entry submission, Australia.
21
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ministry of Health and Health Promotion Agency. (2014). Like Minds, Like Mine National Plan 2014–
2019: Programme to Increase Social Inclusion and Reduce Stigma and Discrimination for People with
Experience of Mental Illness. Wellington: Ministry of Health.
Misterska, E., et al. (2010). "Mass-media and the transplantation crisis: the example of Poland."
Medical Science Monitor 16(8): RA171-176.
Morgan S.E., et al. Entertainment (mis)education: the framing of organ donation in entertainment
television. Health Commun. 2007;22(2):143-51.
Morgan, S. E., et al. (2009). "The power of narratives: The effect of entertainment television organ
donation storylines on the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of donors and nondonors." Journal
of Communication 59(1): 135-151.
Morgan, S. E., et al. (2010). "The effectiveness of high- and low-intensity worksite campaigns to
promote organ donation: The workplace partnership for life." Communication Monographs 77(3):
341-356.
Morgan, S. E., et al. (2011). "The University Worksite Organ Donation Project: a comparison of two
types of worksite campaigns on the willingness to donate." Clinical Transplantation 25(4): 600-605.
Murray, L., et al. (2013). "Communication and consent: discussion and organ donation decisions for
self and family." Transplantation Proceedings 45(1): 10-12.
Pacheco, Z., et al. (2009). "Presence in the media of the topic "donation and transplantation of
organs and tissues" during the 2005 to 2007 period in Venezuela as a strategy to improve its
perception in Venezuelan society." Transplantation Proceedings 41(8): 3462-3465.
Phoenix Research. (2007). “Research to support initiatives to maximise organ and tissue donation.”
Research Report for Ministry of Health, New Zealand.
Public Health Agency. (2015). “Evaluation of a public information campaign on organ donation”
Northern Ireland.
Quick, B. L., et al. (2009). "A 15-year review of ABC, CBS, and NBC news coverage of organ donation:
Implications for organ donation campaigns." Health Communication 24(2): 137-145.
Quick, B. L., et al. (2012). "Message framing and medium considerations for recruiting newly eligible
teen organ donor registrants." American Journal of Transplantation 12(6): 1593-1597.
Quick, B., et al. (2013). "It's up to you: a multi-message, phased driver facility campaign to increase
organ donation registration rates in Illinois." Clinical Transplantation 27(5): E546-553.
Quick, B. L., et al. (2015). "You've got mail! An examination of a statewide direct-mail marketing
campaign to promote deceased organ donor registrations." Clinical Transplantation 29(11): 9971003.
Rios, A., et al. (2011). "Secondary school teachers' assessment of the introduction of an educational
program about organ donation and transplantation." Transplantation Proceedings 43(1): 58-60.
Rodrigue, J. R., et al. (2009). "Relationship of exposure to organ donation information to attitudes,
beliefs, and donation decisions of next of kin." Progress in Transplantation 19(2): 173-179.
Rodrigue, J. R., et al. (2014). "Organ donation video messaging: differential appeal, emotional
valence, and behavioral intention." Clinical Transplantation 28(10): 1184-1192.
22
DRAFT – NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
Salim, A., et al. (2010). "The combination of an online organ and tissue registry with a public
education campaign can increase the number of organs available for transplantation." Journal of
Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care 69(2): 451-454.
Scottish Government, the Leith Agency, ‘Story’ and The Weather. (2013). “A wee chat about organ
donation”. Marketing Society Scotland Star Awards entry submission, Scotland.
Shaw, D., et al. (2013). “Lessons from the German Organ Donation Scandal.” Journal of the Intensive
Care Society 14(3): 200-201.
Siegel, Jason T [Ed]; Alvaro, Eusebio M [Ed] (2010) Understanding organ donation: Applied
behavioral science perspectives, 368 pp Wiley-Blackwell.
Stefanone, M., et al. (2012). "Click to "like" organ donation: the use of online media to promote
organ donor registration." Progress in Transplantation 22(2): 168-174.
Stephens, H.O., et al (2013). “Letter: The impact of checking the Australian Organ Donor Register on
family consent rates”. Med J Aust 199(8): 536-538.
Terbonssen, T., et al. (2015). "Effectiveness of Organ Donation Information Campaigns in Germany:
A Facebook Based Online Survey." Interactive Journal of Medical Research 4(3): e16.
Three30three. (2012). “Spill the Beans Official Campaign Report, October 2012”. A report developed
as part of MCOM333 (Public Relations Campaigns), University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Waterman, A. D. and J. R. Rodrigue (2009). "Transplant and organ donation education: what
matters?" Progress in Transplantation 19(1): 7-8.
Yoo, J. H. and Y. Tian (2011). "Effects of entertainment (MIS) education: Exposure to entertainment
television programs and organ donation intention." Health Communication 26(2): 147-158.
23