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?

"E-Lane" for Pedestrians: An April Fools' Day Prank With Real Public Health Implications

Earlier this week, Philadelphians were treated to an April Fools' Day prank courtesy of Mayor Michael Nutter and the city's Office of Transportation and Utilities.  Across the street from city hall, an "E-Lane" was designated for pedestrians who use (and are distracted by) their electronic devices while walking.  While the city only expects to keep the joke "E-Lane" around for a week, they also hope that it starts a dialogue about pedestrian safety and people looking out for themselves while walking around the city.  Since this April Fools' week also happens to coincide with National Public Health Week (a time dedicated to recognizing the contributions and challenges of public health), I thought it was a great story for Pop Health.  So I took a stroll down the "E-Lane" on Monday to take these pictures and to get the dialogue started.

While I have written about (and am a huge supporter of) the vast and ever expanding benefits of mobile devices for public health, I also acknowledge the challenges that they have created.  Even though Philadelphia created the "E-Lane" as a joke, drivers and pedestrians distracted by electronic devices have become a serious issue.   

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website on distracted driving tells us that each day, more than 15 people are killed and more than 1,200 people are injured in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver. Distracted driving occurs while doing another activity that takes your attention away from driving; these activities can increase the chance of a motor vehicle crash.  While distracted driving can include talking on a cell phone, texting, or eating, texting is most dangerous because it takes your eyes off the road (visual), hands off the wheel (manual), and takes your mind off driving (cognitive).

As with any emerging public health problem, we are beginning to see:

• Research:  papers on distracted drivers and pedestrians are being published in the peer reviewed literature.  
• Education: cautionary tales of distracted driving are emerging in the popular media.  Just in the past few months, the Today Show has hosted several sets of parents who lost children due to texting and driving. 
• Celebrity Spokespeople:  Teen sensation Justin Bieber is partnering with the Remember Alex Brown Foundation and Phone Guard's Drive Safe.ly application to promote responsible texting.  The application reads text (SMS) messages and emails aloud in real time and automatically responds without drivers touching the mobile phone.
• Policy Change:  Just a few weeks ago, Pennsylvania became the 35th state to enact an anti-texting law.  The new law allows police to charge anyone caught text messaging while operating a vehicle with a primary offense and a $50 fine. 

As with most public health problems, we will need a combination of these strategies (i.e., individual education, social norm changes, policy/law changes, technological solutions, etc) to see a reduction in injuries and deaths.

What do you think?

• How can we balance the benefits and challenges of mobile technology for public health?
• Do you think the "E-Lane" in Philadelphia is an effective strategy for initiating dialogue around distracted drivers and pedestrians?
• In addition to the strategies listed above, what can public health and the public do to reduce injuries and deaths from distracted drivers and pedestrians?