Tara Seymour

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH

BRANDING

COMMERCIAL BRANDS

American Legacy Foundations truth campaign

CDC’s VERB: It’s what you do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxcsKE1SS4Y

PUBLIC HEALTH BRANDS

Research of major online databases and consultation with health communication and marketing experts

Only included studies where the sole object of the branding effort was a public health behavior/outcome

A total of 37 articles were included in the review from US, Africa, Australia and Europe

METHODS

Topic AreaBrand developmentUse of scientific theoryFormative researchPersuasive elements

DOMAINS OF INTEREST

Marketing executionEvidence of social marketing or communications campaign

Marketing channelsMarketing techniquesOppositional vs. nonoppositional effort

DOMAINS OF INTEREST

Evaluation reporting and outcomes reportedStudy sampleResearch designStatistics reportedExplicit measures of brandingObjectives/ hypotheses clearly statedReported outcomes of the branding effortMeasure of the precision of the estimate

DOMAINS OF INTEREST

RESULTS: TOPIC AREA

RESULTS: BRAND DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING EXECUTION

RESULTS: STUDY DESIGN AND OUTCOME REPORTING

Key factors that should be included in a well reported study of public health branding

Range: 0 to 11Mean value of 7.7, SD= 1.97

QUALITY SCALE

Absence of well recognized key words

Lack of standardization of reporting and measurement

Need for more experimental studies with longitudinal data

LIMITATIONS

Public health branding appears to be versatile strategy public health areas Marketing channels

Suggested characteristics that are important to public health branding and should be included in future research

Some studies suggested evidence of prevention effects but longitudinal studies across multiple areas are needed to better asses the effectiveness

CONCLUSIONS

QUESTIONS?