Download Document

Public health workers and first
responders as social marketers:
Understanding attitudes and levels of
self-efficacy to improve communication
during emergency events
Dominique G. Ruggieri, MA
Elizabeth J. Leebron, PhD
Sarah Bauerle Bass, PhD, MPH
Brenda Seals, PhD, MPH
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA
Overview of Study

Focus groups conducted with:
 Philadelphia public health professionals (2 groups)
 Philadelphia police officers of the Major Incident
Response Team (MIRT) (1 group)

Discussions were directed at understanding
attitudes and levels of self-efficacy about being
″social marketers″ in times of disaster, resulting in
recommendations for improving responder
communication training.
Focus Group Questions

3 sets of questions
1.
2.
3.
General attitudes about being “social
marketers” during disaster situations (level
of self-efficacy)
Disaster specific examples (e.g. dirty bomb,
anthrax, smallpox) to gain greater
understanding of levels of self-efficacy
Attitudes about value of media training, as
well as what a training exercise should look
like and who should attend
Focus Group #1:
Public Health Bioterrorism Unit

Social marketing and self-efficacy feedback


Greater comfort level in speaking about home
preparedness or general preparedness, but only to
family members—not public or media
Less comfort level with specific situations
• Some confidence in speaking about smallpox & anthrax
• No group members felt confident in speaking about sarin
gas poisonings or dirty bombs


Some fear of exhibiting a lack of knowledge or incorrect
information that would reflect poorly on city, state, or
federal health departments
Less willing to disseminate messages to media because
of perceived media manipulation or restructuring of
responders’ messages
Focus Group #1:
Public Health Bioterrorism Unit

Media training feedback

Media training sessions would give responders
a frame of reference for what to expect

Responders indicated that this type of training
would be useful for the Public Information
Officer (PIO) and upper level management

Participants (mostly mid-level public health
professionals) did not feel training was
appropriate for them because media should
interact with PIO only
Focus Group #2:
Public Health Division Leads

Social marketing and self-efficacy feedback

Greater comfort level in speaking about avian flu, small
pox, and anthrax

Less comfort level in speaking about sarin gas
poisonings or dirty bomb

Perceived “vulture” nature of media was viewed as a
road block to competency as a social marketer

The more targeted the questions, the less comfortable
they were in social marketing role

Those with more experience in media training were
more willing to participate in collaborative media efforts
Focus Group #2:
Public Health Division Leads

Media training feedback

Prior media training correlated with greater
willingness to participate in media training
for emergency preparedness

Indicated that familiarity with process about
how media work will lead to better
preparedness in responder situations
Focus Group #3:
MIRT Police

Social marketing and self-efficacy feedback

Felt the need to respond with some information
because the media will go to other sources (not
necessarily the best ones)

Aware of the need to control emotion when
communicating about situations which have potential
impact on communities

Indicated reservation in dealing with media due to
fear of misrepresentation

Felt that the social marketing role needs to be
considered along with the need to uphold the
integrity of an investigation
Focus Group #3:
MIRT Police

Media training feedback




Indicated that level of self-efficacy would be
improved with more practice in public speaking
skills
Felt that media representatives should be part of
the training session so that the media can learn the
needs of the police and the language that police
would likely use during disaster situations
Believed that every officer should participate in the
training
Expressed that training should include tips and
tools for working with the media
Focus Group Similarities

Both public health professional groups
expressed limited comfort in talking with
public and no comfort in speaking with
media

Public health professionals and MIRT police
officers indicated that training should
include an overview of how the media work
and what specific goals they have
Focus Group Differences



Whereas both public health groups were not
comfortable in speaking about specific disaster
situations, the police felt very comfortable in
discussing events with the public.
Police who had received previous media training
felt more comfortable speaking with the media
during crisis situations. Public health
professionals who had previous media training
were still uncomfortable.
Police felt that trainings are important for all
levels of officers. Public health professionals
indicated that only a PIO and upper level
management should participate.
Overview of Results




Results revealed that most responders indicated
discomfort with speaking about many emergency
issues (e.g. anthrax, smallpox, and sarin gas
poisonings).
Participants expressed that they would feel very
uncomfortable speaking to the media during crises.
Trainings were viewed as valuable but more
necessary for upper level management (Public
health professionals)
Trainings were viewed as valuable and necessary
for all levels of police officers (MIRT team)
Implications/Conclusions

In the event of a disaster, all responders indicated
that they would not feel prepared regarding their
ability to communicate to the media. Public health
professionals also felt ill prepared to speak to the
public.

Results from this study informed the development
and implementation of a risk communication
training program for public health workers and
police.

Tailored media preparedness and camerareadiness training for public health workers and
police is needed beyond the demonstration period.