"Call Me Crazy": Lifetime's New Movie That Champions Hope and Resilience Around Mental Illness

*Warning: it was difficult to write this post without including a few small spoilers, but I hope you'll watch the whole film anyway.

On Saturday April 20th, Lifetime debuted "Call Me Crazy: A Five Film".  The film (which boasts a star-studded cast and director list) includes five short stories that examine the impact of mental illness from various perspectives.  Each story is named after the main character: "Lucy", "Grace", "Allison", "Eddie", and "Maggie".

In the first story, we are introduced to Lucy (played by Brittany Snow).  Lucy, a law student, has recently been admitted to a psychiatric institution after experiencing a schizophrenic episode.  She is struggling to see how she can live a "normal" life that includes relationships and a career.  Her clinician encourages her to finish law school because she has insight into something very few people understand (mental illness)- so who knows how many people she could help?

In "Grace", we meet a daughter who has been living with a bipolar mother for her entire life.  Grace is played beautifully by Sarah Hyland from "Modern Family"- I loved seeing her in a dramatic role.  We see the "highs" and "lows" of her mother's condition.  We also see the devastating impact that it has on Grace's life when it is not treated.  Grace often plays the role of caretaker- making sure her mother is safe.  We see her struggle to have her own life aside from her mother's illness.

"Allison" offers the viewers a twist.  She plays Lucy's younger sister.  So we step back from Lucy's view and we see how mental illness has affected her entire family.  Allison's childhood, her sense of safety, her relationship with her parents- were all changed as a result of her sister's illness.  She has bottled up a lot of anger and finds it difficult to support her sister through her recovery.

"Eddie" introduces the only male main character.  He is suffering from severe depression.  He has withdrawn from his wife and his friends.  He has stopped receiving help from his therapist.  We watch his wife intervene after discovering that he may be thinking about suicide.

Finally, "Maggie" introduces topics that (unfortunately) are all too common these days- post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and military sexual trauma among our returning veterans.  Maggie (played by Jennifer Hudson) was victimized during her time in the Army and its lasting impacts are threatening her ability to have a healthy relationship with her family.  Here we get another update on Lucy- she is now a lawyer and is representing Maggie in court.

While each story stands on its own, Lucy's story is woven throughout "Allison" and "Maggie" as well.  I really liked this strategy.  Not only because I became invested in her character during the first story...but also because seeing her evolve over time helped to demonstrate some key themes from this film- hope and resilience.

As Lucy says to Maggie: "I am living proof". [Of what?] "That there is hope".  In court, Lucy reminds Maggie's judge that having mental illness does not mean that you are a bad person or a bad mother.  She also reminds him about the importance of social support, "it is nearly impossible to get well alone".  Even though we see all of these characters at their lowest point- there is still hope that they can feel better, have strong relationships, and contribute positively to the world.

It seems fitting that Brittany Snow's character delivers these messages about hope and resilience, as she is a strong advocate for them in real life.  Together with the Jed Foundation and MTV, she founded Love is Louder.  Love is Louder is an inclusive movement that amplifies messages of love and support to combat negative messages resulting from bullying, loneliness, and stigma.  She has also publicly shared her own battles with anorexia, depression, and self harm.

As a health educator, I highly recommend this film as a resource for discussing mental illness, suicide, stigma, social support, and help-seeking.  Since each story is approximately 20 minutes, they can be broken down into segments or watched all together.  This film is a great example of Entertainment Education, which is an area of public health that acknowledges the strong impact that television and movies play in educating the public about health issues.

If you or someone you know is struggling with a mental illness, please reach out:
National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1-800-273-8255)

A Pop Health Book Review of “In the Kingdom of the Sick: A Social History of Chronic Illness in America”

In 2009 I read "Life Disrupted: Getting Real about Chronic Illness in Your Twenties And Thirties".  Since the book inspired me personally and professionally, I was delighted that Twitter enabled me to connect directly with the author Laurie Edwards.  I was even more delighted when she asked to interview me for her new book, "In the Kingdom of the Sick: A Social History of Chronic Illness in America".  Since Pop Health focuses on health communication and the coverage of public health issues in the media, we had plenty of mutual interests to discuss!

"The very nature of chronic illness- debilitating symptoms, physical side effects of medications, the gradual slowing down as diseases progress- is antithetical to the cult of improvement and enhancement that so permeates pop culture." 
("In the Kingdom of the Sick", page 34)

Early in the book, I found this quote incredibly powerful.  It is true.  Our society values and spotlights those that overcome adversity- those that inspire us- those that beat the odds.  Before his fall from grace, we can all remember the worldwide cheering for Oscar Pistorius- making history last summer for being the first double-amputee to compete in the Olympic games.  Edwards highlights those societal values in her book by drawing on the imagery found in many commercials for breast cancer research and fundraising.  Those commercials show an unforgettable image, a "cancer survivor triumphantly crossing the finish line in her local fund-raising event surrounded by earnest supporters."  That triumphant image is a far cry from what Edwards and colleagues term the "Tired Girls" (i.e., female patients suffering with "invisible illnesses" like fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and migraines).  "The Tired Girl stands for so much that society disdains:  weakness, exhaustion, dependence, unreliability, and the inability to get better" (page 103).

The good news is that many of the "Tired Girls" (and Guys) are getting connected and getting empowered.  Edwards dedicates a significant portion of her book to the discussion of "patients in the digital age."  She describes the emergence of "e-patients" (those that are empowered, engaged, equipped, enabled) and how they are using technology to actively participate in the development of their care plans, connect with patients with similar diagnoses, give voice to their experiences, advocate for policy change, and debate controversial topics like vaccinations.

As a public health professional with significant interest in health communication, I was fascinated by a recurring theme that Edwards highlights from these conversations among empowered patients and writers:

"How does language influence the illness experience?"          

The reader is led through an intriguing discussion of the use and implications of terms such as:

• Illness vs. Disease
• Illness vs. Chronic Condition
• Illness vs. Disability
• Military Metaphors (e.g., "the battle against disease")
• Chronic Pain Patient vs. Patient with Chronic Pain
• Healthy Disabled vs. Unhealthy Disabled
• Patient (does it connote passivity?)

"In the Kingdom of the Sick" is a fascinating read for anyone with a personal and/or professional connection to chronic illness.  It begins by giving you a strong foundation in the history of illness, research, and patient advocacy movements.  It then challenges you to consider the impact of advances in patient rights, science, communication, and technology on the incidence, treatment, and perception of chronic illness.  I highly recommend this book to my Pop Health readers, friends, and colleagues.

If you are interested in connecting with Laurie Edwards:

Website:  http://www.laurieedwardswriter.com

Blog: http://www.laurieedwardswriter.com/blog

Facebook:  http://www.facebook.com/laurieedwardswriter

Twitter:  https://twitter.com/achronicdose 

Using Twitter to Track Disease: Weighing the Advantages and Challenges

A few weeks ago I participated in a fantastic twitter chat on the use of social media for public health.  During the event, our moderators posed the following question: "Are there any other diseases (besides the flu) that we could track on social media?"

The question generated a very lively discussion that I was inspired to revisit on Storify this morning after reading the Washington Post's article, "Twitter becomes a tool for tracking flu epidemics and other public health issues." 

The WP article highlights several advantages and challenges of monitoring public health diseases and/or conditions on twitter.  My twitter chat colleagues brought up many other important issues for us to consider, so I'm including these expanded lists:

Advantages:

• Offers real time data on health or behavior (Government data can often take weeks or months to be released)
• There is so much available data! 
• It could capture cases that would not otherwise be formally documented at a physician's office or hospital.
• It has proved helpful in tracking time sensitive disease outbreaks (e.g., Novovirus).  *Check out this article about how twitter was used to track Norovirus activity during a journalism conference.

Challenges:

• Accuracy and case definition (i.e., does a twitter user really have the flu or just a bad cold?)
• Tracking specific words like "sick" or "flu" can bring up a lot of content that is unrelated to the twitter user being ill themselves (e.g., "I'm so sick of this terrible weather").  *Check out how Johns Hopkins researchers are working to address this problem by better screening tweets.
• We must differentiate between tracking symptoms vs. tracking cases- they are not the same.
• Our search strategies should include various terms or slang that are used to describe the disease or behavior of interest.
• Caution: media coverage of certain illnesses can cause a spike in key words on twitter without a rise in actual cases.
• What are the privacy concerns?
• Twitter might not thoroughly capture diseases or conditions that carry stigma (e.g., mental illness) because users may be hesitant to discuss them in a public forum.
• Results could be skewed by populations who are over or under represented on twitter.
• Do we need to train "trackers" to intervene? E.g., what if they are monitoring dangerous tweets/behaviors like suicidal ideation and attempts?

While the challenges list is quite long, I hope we are not discouraged!  I think twitter is an enormous resource for public health professionals.  We just need to be thoughtful and thorough regarding how to use twitter effectively.

More Resources:

The Washington Post article and related stories shared great links to more information about research in this area:

• YouTube video on University of Rochester efforts to track influenza on twitter.  It also describes their related app: Germ Tracker (warning: it may have you hopping off your regular morning bus). 
• Johns Hopkins University article: "You Are What You Tweet: Analyzing Twitter for Public Health".
• Brigham Young University article: "'Right Time, Right Place' Health Communication on Twitter: Value and Accuracy of Location Information".
• A great article that highlights what we can learn from Google Flu (since their predictions were off this year)- emphasizes the importance of "re-calibrating" your models or algorithms each year.

What Do You Think?

• What other advantages and/or challenges should we add to the list?
• What other resources can you share?

  

Downton Abbey: A Mountain of Viewer Tears Leads to an Incredible Online Discussion about Maternal Health

Warning: if the January 27, 2013 episode of Downton is still on your DVR- this post contains spoilers!

From the looks of twitter this week, I am not the only person who was devastated by the loss of Lady Sybil on Downton Abbey.  She died of Eclampsia shortly after giving birth to her daughter.  In my house, there was complete silence while we watched Sybil convulsing and struggling to breathe.  After she died, our horror and sadness quickly turned to anger.  There were two doctors in the room (one of whom made the correct diagnosis)- how could this happen?

As I contemplated this question, I was fascinated to see how this story line impacted the public health messaging that started appearing on twitter.  I recognized a few trends:

Making the connection to current women's health issues and debates

There has been much concern about men making decisions about women's healthcare- for example, the comments in 2012 about the definition of rape and the ongoing abortion debate.  Since Sybil's death was largely the result of poor decisions about her health (made by her father and the fancy male doctor consulting on her case), I saw the following post on this topic over and over again:

 

Identifying a Teachable Moment:  Preeclampsia and Eclampsia Specifically

Like many organizations, the American Public Health Association (APHA) followed up on Monday with this message:

Identifying a Teachable Moment:  Maternal Mortality and Maternal Health Broadly  

I saw many links to organizations such as Every Mother Counts, which focuses on global maternal health advocacy:

In addition to the discussion on social media, many news outlets and foundations also took the opportunity to post information on their websites about the condition that killed Sybil.  For example, ABCNews wrote, "Eclampsia Death in 'Downton Abbey' Highlights Pregnancy's No. 1 Killer".

I would love to see some evaluation data to follow this teachable moment.  Some questions that I have:

• How many people searched for Preeclampsia and Eclampsia following the episode?  (As a side note, this episode aired months ago in the UK- was there a similar searching pattern?)
• How many physicians/midwives/clinicians received inquiries from patients following the episode?
• Beyond knowledge- did this episode change any clinician behaviors?  Did they go back and review a suspicious case after seeing a reminder of the severity of this condition?  Did they perform a more comprehensive screening?

What do you think?

What other evaluation questions should we be asking?

What other trends did you see in the discussion on social media (or in person) following this episode?

A Superstorm of Social Media

Over the past week, there has been widespread discussion regarding the broad reach and value of social media during Superstorm Sandy.  Jim Garrow wrote about the emergency management field's adoption of social media and the powerful influx of images received through those channels.  In the New York Times, Brian Stelter and Jennifer Preston discussed how public officials use social media during a crisis.  Technology bloggers have posted analyses regarding the increase in internet use during the storm.

So what can Pop Health add?  I wanted to break down "social media use" even further.  I wanted to discuss the specific ways in which I saw it being used.  And although I think we all have a primarily positive view of social media's contribution during an emergency, I think it is also important to highlight some of the challenges that may appear with these communication channels.

Let's start with the good stuff!  During and after the storm, I saw social media being used for:

Individual-Level Advocacy

Affected residents used social media to communicate directly with local and state officials to report property damage, ask questions, and request direct assistance.  For example:

• As the screen shot above shows, Cory Booker (the Mayor of Newark, NJ) has been corresponding directly with his residents on twitter and following up with the necessary supplies or services.

• Locally in Philadelphia, I've seen the same thing with Mayor Michael Nutter.  He has been messaging with citizens about downed trees and power, in order to direct assistance to areas that need it the most.

Community-Level Advocacy

One thing that amazed me during Sandy was the power of social media in terms of advocacy on behalf of whole communities (whether they be particular neighborhoods or cities).

• When Margate, Longport, and Brigantine, NJ were reopened after the storm, there was immediate and overwhelming protest to the toll on the Margate bridge.  Residents felt that it was extremely insensitive (and selfish) for the bridge owners to charge storm refugees to get back onto the island (especially when they had no choice but to take that particular route).  Through protests on twitter and Facebook, the bridge owners were persuaded to reverse their decision to charge.

• The decision to cancel the NYC marathon was a difficult- and some would say delayed- decision.  While objections to the marathon (and the resources it would require) were widespread, much of the discussion happened on social media.  These channels were used to post online petitions and plan protests.  As you know, the race was finally canceled two days before the start.

Donations

Social media has been a key place to ask for donations to help the victims of Sandy.  Some strategies have been more traditional (e.g., asking for donations for the Red Cross).  Others have been quite creative!

• For example, runners in the canceled NYC marathon could follow a link posted on twitter in order to donate their hotel room to someone displaced by the storm.

The power of social media lies in its reach and ability to deliver information in real time.  On the flip side, the concern is that false information can spread quickly as well.  Here are a few examples that happened during Sandy:

• If you were using social media when the storm hit, you may remember seeing many unbelievable images.  One that I saw over and over was a group of soldiers guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.  However, we later learned that this image was taken back in September.  Mashable pulled together a list of "7 Fake Hurricane Sandy Photos You're Sharing on Social Media".  

• A congressional campaign manager in NYC resigned after sending out false information on twitter.  One of the rumors he started was that the trading floor of the New York Stock Exchange had 3 feet of flood water.  Many of his tweets are shown here.

As you can imagine, there is great danger to the public's health if incorrect information is widely shared.  Residents may panic and evacuate from a location that is actually safe.  Emergency management and public officials may be distracted from the work at hand, because they have to deal with clarifying a rampant and destructive rumor.

I think we can all agree that the value of social media in a crisis far outweighs the potential challenges.  However, this is an important conversation to keep having and I'd like to hear from you:

• In addition to the examples above, how did you see social media used during Sandy?
• How can we be even more innovative?  In what ways could we use social media during a crisis that we haven't yet tried?
• How can we prevent false information from spreading during a crisis?

October is [Fill in the Blank] Awareness Month- A Guest Post for "The Public's Health"

Today I had the pleasure contributing another guest post on "The Public's Health".  The blog is a collaboration between the Drexel University School of Public Health and Philly.com.  In multiple posts each week, the authors highlight contemporary, historical, and ethical matters that challenge public health professionals.

In today's post, I examine health "awareness campaigns" and discuss their effectiveness for improving public health.

What do you think:  Is the public burned out on annual health observances? Or are they effective in helping to prevent illness/disease? In what other ways can organizations and individuals become more action-oriented to help improve the public’s health?

Cameron Diaz: The Next Celebrity Nutritionist?

Cameron Diaz is busy with her next project.  Her rep confirms her interest in writing a nutrition book to help young girls.  She wants to use her celebrity for good- to encourage girls not to fixate on being thin but instead just to make healthy choices.

A few thoughts:

Of all the celebrities that I see pitching these types of projects (I'm looking at you Gwyneth Paltrow), Cameron actually seems to model a healthy lifestyle.  She is not too thin, but instead looks muscular and strong.  We always see her keeping active with surfing and regular gym workouts.

It is reported that (in preparation for the book) Cameron will be visiting high schools to talk to teenagers about their food choices and what is important to them.  She wants to get their input, e.g., how do they decide what to eat? Although this work will not be a formal "Needs Assessment", I like that Cameron will be out in the community and talking to the teenagers who are the focus of her book.  Doing formative work before a project that engages your audience is incredibly important in public health.  Hearing and seeing what the health problem/s look like first hand allow us to craft more effective interventions.  So I applaud Cameron for planning to do this outreach versus just planning to write a book that may or may not address the challenges faced out in communities. For example, Cameron can discuss the importance of choosing fruit over potato chips, but if a teenager does not have access to affordable fresh fruit in their neighborhood, then the recommendation is not helpful.

One challenge to this effort is that even though Cameron appears to model a healthy lifestyle, she is still a member of the Hollywood community that has contributed to setting an unrealistic standard for beauty.  We have seen her on numerous magazine covers looking very thin and of course airbrushed.  In public health, we always have to think- "is this the right spokesperson"?  It is important to know how teenage girls view Cameron.  Do they see her as part of the problem?  Or part of the solution?

Another challenge is that (from my perspective), celebrity "nutritionists" do not have the best track record for safety and accuracy.  Take Cameron's friend Gwyneth Paltrow.  She has regularly promoted nutrition strategies like detox cleanses and gluten-free diets.  Her extreme choices do not send a message of moderation to teenage girls.  In addition, Gwyneth's cover photos also contribute to the unrealistic standard for beauty.

As I've discussed many times on this blog, celebrities can be an incredible resource for public health.  They have a visible platform and extensive reach to many of our audiences.  However, that can work for us or against us based on the accuracy and relevancy of their messages.  It is imperative that they work closely with clinicians (e.g., physicians, nutritionists) and public health practitioners to craft the messages and design outreach programs.

What do you think about Cameron writing a nutrition book?

So Who Else Caught the Brain Surgery on Twitter Today?

If you were on twitter today, you may have seen the hashtag #MHbrain.  That stood for Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center in Houston (@houstonhospital).  Today they live-tweeted a brain surgery which removed a cavernous angioma tumor from a 21-year-old female patient.

According to the hospital's press release, the goal of the "twittercast" was to (1) educate the public about brain tumors and (2) demystify brain surgery by giving a look inside an operating room.  The surgeon, Dr. Dong Kim, added "Someone may have a loved one who is considering a similar procedure and perhaps they can glean some information from this twittercast that may help them make a decision about whether surgery is the right choice for them."

In authentic social media style, the hospital did not just send out information and images. They also had another neurosurgeon, Dr. Scott Shepard, serve as an online moderator who could respond to questions and comments from twitter followers in real time.

While there was much excitement over this event today, it is not the first time we have heard about surgeons tweeting from the operating room.  Back in 2009, CNN picked up a story about surgeons at Henry Ford Hospital in Michigan tweeting the removal of a cancerous tumor from the kidney of a male patient.  Just last February, Memorial Hermann was in the news for the first live tweeted open heart surgery.

A few thoughts on this trend:

How is Memorial Hermann evaluating their twittercast efforts?  

• Was this a huge marketing event or do they actually have health education goals?
• Are they simply looking at the numbers?  For example, the number of twitter followers (up to 13,400 from 5,100 in the past 3 months).  Or the number of visitors to Storify, a site which archives both the heart and brain surgeries.
• Are the demographics of twitter users reflective of their target audience?
• I would hope that they are thinking about how to evaluate the goals they explicitly laid out in their press release.  How will they show that a twittercast can increase knowledge about brain tumors?  How will they show that the public or potential patients have less anxiety about the procedure or choose it more often?  As always, it is important to state goals (for any public health activity) that are measurable.  

How is social media a benefit/challenge for physicians?

• I read an interesting blog post recently called, "Why social media may not be worth it for doctors."  The author was concerned about already burned-out doctors trying to learn and make time for ever-changing technology...with no guarantee that the technology will give them "return on investment".  Do the challenges outweigh the benefits?
• If physicians view themselves as "educators", how much value could twitter bring?

Are there patient safety or confidentiality issues that should be considered?

• Although the patient's name was protected and she gave permission for the twittercast, is it possible that any confidential information could be accidentally shared during the event?
• Although safeguards are in place, errors do happen in the operating room and throughout the hospital.  With the additional staff/equipment (and possible distraction?) in the operating room to conduct the twittercast, could we face an increased risk of error?

What do you think?

Facebook Adds Organ Donation To Timeline: Should We "Like" It?

Typically, I post on Wednesdays.  However, with so much chatter about Facebook's announcement, this felt more timely.
Starting today, you can add your organ donation status to your Facebook timeline using the "share life" tool.  If you are already registered, you can share your story about where and why you decided to become an organ donor.  If you are interested in registering, you can follow links to official donor registries.

ABC has been a primary news source for this announcement, interviewing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, demonstrating how to use the "share life" tool, and discussing myths and facts about organ donation.

Scanning Facebook and Twitter today (especially among my public health colleagues), the response seems to be overwhelmingly positive.  From my perspective, the Facebook tool has the potential to be effective (i.e., increasing the number of registered donors) because it focuses on action.  The tool is not for education.  The tool actually links to registries so that you can sign up.  The tool aims to increase the visibility of already registered donors, which in turn will influence others to sign up.  The tool aims to decrease the stigma and secrecy of talking about end of life decisions by putting it right up there next to your birth date and relationship status.  This may also influence others to sign up.  In previous posts, I have written about public health campaigns that use social media in order to reduce the stigma around an "undesirable" topic (e.g., STD testing).

Although I am 100% supportive of the mission of increasing organ donors and am familiar with the dire need for donations (e.g., 18 people will die each day waiting for an organ), I have a few reservations about "share life":

In today's New York Times coverage of the Facebook announcement, I read a sentence that concerned me (I added the underlining):

"The company announced a plan on Tuesday morning to encourage everyone on Facebook to start advertising their donor status on their pages, along with their birth dates and schools — a move that it hopes will create peer pressure to nudge more people to add their names to the rolls of registered organ donors".

I consider declaration as an organ donor to be a medical decision.  In public health and medicine, we strive for patients and the public to make such decisions from a position that is informed and lacks pressure from physicians or family or friends.  Therefore, I have reservations about people signing up without educating themselves first and/or because they feel pressure on Facebook.  Just a few weeks ago, I posted about "hashtag activism" and how easy it has become to get involved in causes via social media.  Are we as thoughtful when we participate in causes on Facebook as when we participate in real life?

My other ongoing concern is regarding the proper security and use of personal information that is gathered by Facebook.  Will your organ donation status result in particular advertisements being sent your way?  I remember updating my Facebook status to "engaged" 4 years ago and being overwhelmed by the wedding planning advertisements on my page.  There is increasing public outcry regarding privacy settings and the personal information you enter being used for Facebook to attract advertisers and other business opportunities. 

Again, I am 100% supportive of the organ donation mission.  I think the reach of Facebook offers tremendous public health opportunities (including the possible elimination of long wait time for organs).  While that is an attractive outcome, we must always remember to focus on the ethics of the process as well.

What do you think?

•  Facebook has become directly involved with several public health issues (e.g., suicide, bullying, organ donation).  Are their strategies effective?  Why or why not? 
• Do you foresee any unintended consequences from the organ donation tool?
• Will you include your organ donation status on your Facebook timeline?  Why or why not?

 

Integrating Public Health Content Into Media Coverage of Celebrity DUIs

Amanda Bynes is just the latest young female celebrity to be arrested for driving under the influence (DUI).  The media coverage has been extensive, with some outlets even raising the question, "Is she the next Lindsay Lohan?"  A fellow former child star, Lindsay Lohan has consistently been in the news the past 5 years with DUI arrests, rehab stints, and poor career decisions.  However, just a few weeks ago we heard the good news that she has been taken off probation from her DUI case...so hopefully things are looking up.

Pop Health has written about related issues in the past:  how soon is too soon to find a teachable moment in a celebrity DUI death?  How does popular media help establish the public health agenda? How does media coverage of public health issues (e.g., suicide) affect the public's health?

So now let's put the pieces together and discuss the work of public health researchers that focuses specifically on media coverage of young female celebrity DUIs.  In 2009, Smith, Twum, and Gielen published "Media Coverage of Celebrity DUIs: Teachable Moments or Problematic Social Modeling?" in the journal of Alcohol & Alcoholism.  They conducted an analysis of US media coverage of four female celebrities (Michelle Rodriguez, Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie and Lindsay Lohan).  The study examined media coverage in the year after their DUI arrests (December 2005 through June 2008).  Among other things, the stories were coded for the presence of public health content (e.g., arrest, death, and injury statistics for DUI).  The authors found that the coverage was primarily focused on the individual celebrities (i.e., their legal and professional repercussions) versus broader social or public health impacts.  They recommended that future research examine both the news coverage and the comprehension and use of that content for policy and behavior change initiatives.

Coverage of a celebrity DUI has the potential to be a teachable moment, but we as public health practitioners need to take advantage of it.  We need to be monitoring pop culture news so that these teachable moments can be identified. We need to partner with journalists in order to make sure that a "public health frame" is incorporated in the development of the articles.  Most importantly, we need to continue to evaluate the media content and use that data to develop effective interventions and policy recommendations.

What do you think?

•   What strategies/information channels do you use to stay on top of public health-pop culture news?
•   How can the public health and journalism fields partner to take advantage of teachable moments and cover public health issues safely and effectively?