When you are creating health messages, small changes can make a big difference. A study by researchers at Penn’s Annenberg School found that slight differences in how the new vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV) is described influence whether women decide to get the vaccination.
A representative sample of 635 American adults, of whom 49 percent were women, was randomly assigned to read one of three slightly different paragraphs about the vaccine through the Annenberg National Health Communication Survey.
One paragraph addressed how the vaccine protects against cervical cancer, another how the vaccine protects against cervical cancer and sexually transmitted infection and the third how the vaccine protects against cervical cancer, sexually transmitted infection and how it may or may not lead to increased sexual promiscuity among those vaccinated.
The survey was administered to determine the participant’s intentions regarding vaccination.
When women in the survey read that the vaccine protects only against cervical cancer, 63 percent indicated that they were very likely or somewhat likely to get the vaccine compared to 43 percent of women who read that the vaccine protects against cervical cancer and a sexually transmitted infection.
When it’s all about preventing cancer, most of the women wanted the vaccine. But when you introduce the factor of it protecting against a sexually transmitted infection — even while still preventing the Big C — almost a third of the women opted out. Is this because they don’t think it is something that they need (because, after all, THEY would never get an STI), or is it because it stigmatizes the vaccine recipient who wants the cancer protection but does not want people to think she is at risk of an STI?
This has huge implications for how the vaccine is marketed — especially to parents, who will likely make the decision whether their daughters should get it or not (the vaccine is approved for girls as young as 9 years old).
I wrote about marketing this vaccine a while ago in response to a post that Seth Godin wrote about not wanting that marketing gig. Here’s what I suggested should be done (which was endorsed by Seth in the comments!):
We would need to figure out what the key values are of the parents (who would likely make the decision) and appeal to those things that are most important to them — feeling like a good parent, taking care of their daughters’ health, making sure that their daughter will not have reproductive problems in the future. And, God forbid, the worst thing a parent can imagine is their child getting cancer — what wouldn’t they do or pay to prevent that from happening?Position the vaccine as preventing cervical cancer rather than focusing on anything that might suggest that their daughter would even consider becoming sexually active until she is an adult. Get the CDC to add the vaccine to their recommended immunization schedule so that doctors will provide it as a matter of course with other teen booster shots so that parents won’t feel like the recommendation comes from a negative judgment of them or their daughters. Get insurance companies to cover some of the costs of the vaccination since they will have fewer cases of cervical cancer and STDs to pay for later. The fears about long-term effects may be addressed by comparing the risks of the vaccine to other similar products and showing that the benefits far outweigh the possible risks.
In light of these research results, I stand by my recommendations. Looks like Merck is too.
Technorati Tags: gardasil, hpv, vaccine, immunizations, social marketing
Nedra helps nonprofits and public agencies create positive change on health and social issues through social marketing and transmedia storytelling strategies at Weinreich Communications since founding the company in 1995. She helps organizations make a difference for the populations they serve by strategically designing programs that draw on state-of-the-art behavior change techniques, digital media approaches and the power of stories. 
