357 Evaluating the National Tobacco Education Campaign

Thursday, August 16, 2012
Exhibit Hall (Kansas City Convention Center)
Terry Pechacek, PhD , CDC Office on Smoking and Health, Atlanta, GA
Ms. Jami Fraze, Ph.D. , Office of Smoking and Health, CDC, Atlanta, GA
Mr. Robert Alexander, Ph.D. , Office of Smoking and Health, CDC, atlanta, GA
Mr. Robert Rodes, MS, MBA, MEd , OSH, CDC, Atlanta, GA

Learning Objectives

At the conclusion of this presentation attendees will be able to:

  1. List 2 programmatic outcomes for the campaign and with what method they are being evaluated.
  2. Discuss 2 findings from the campaign evaluation.

Cross Cutting Program Area(s): Communications and Media and Evaluation and Surveillance

Audience: This presentation is most suitable for tobacco control campaign managers and evaluators.

Key Points: Below

Educational Experience: Lecture

Benefits:

CDC’s National Tobacco Education Campaign evaluation is informed by the CDC’s “Framework for Program Evaluation” (CDC, 1999), stakeholder and expert input, campaign reviews and meta-analyses, and health behavior change theories. With an aim for rigor and sensitivity to campaign effects (Noar, 2006), this design includes process evaluation to examine campaign advertising, earned and electronic media, and partner outreach (CDC, 2008) and outcome evaluation to assess campaign exposure (via a self-report pre-post survey and GRPs) and campaign outcomes related to self-reported quit attempts among target audience members (Hornik, 2002). Preliminary evaluation findings and implications for evaluating similar programs will be discussed.

References

CDC. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR 1999; 48 (No. RR-11) (1-40).

CDC. Introduction to Process Evaluation in Tobacco Use Prevention and Control. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, NCCDPHP, OSH; 2008.

Hornik, RC. Epilogue: Evaluation design for public health communication programs. Public Health Communication, 385-406.

Noar, SM. A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: Where do we go from here? Journal of Health Communication 2006; 11(1)21-42.