1

Communication in Practice

12th Annual Measles & Rubella Initiative Meeting10th-11th September, 2013

RJ Davis, WB Mbabazi, M Charles, A Patel

““I wrote a report to the Minister and also sent it to the English-language dailies. He read my report in the newspaper.”

—S. Ramasundaram, Former Head

Health and Family Welfare Department

Tamil Nadu, India

Communication Approach we use

AudienceAudience

ResponseResponse

ChannelsChannelsMessageMessageObjectiveObjectiveSenderSender

ResponseResponse

Measles/Rubella Control/Elimination

1. High morbidity and mortality disease entities; 2. Spread easily and fast causing epidemics3. Dictates that We Move Faster

Reaching at least 95% of all infants with the first MCV/RCV in all Districts

Reaching at least 95% of all <5yrs old children with a second dose of MCV in all districts

a) Through Routine (MSD)b) SIAs/Mass Vaccination Campaigns

4. When we fail to access the less accessible we fail to reach 95%

3. Communication Objectives

Advocacy Mobilize leaders to participate and support

Measles/Rubella control/elimination efforts Mobilize all stakeholders for epidemic prevention and

control efforts.

Social Mobilization Promote desired measles control behaviors Create awareness about measles/Rubella disease,

especially outbreaks (predicted or real). Demystify misinformation, rumors & misconceptions

Communication Objectives cont’d

Social Mobilization Cont’d Mobilize the population to participate in epidemic

prevention/containment interventions including:1. Community mobilization2. Early detection/notification of measles/Rubella

epidemics3. Active case research/reporting4. High-risk populations surveillance5. Mapping and knowledge building of community

resource persons etc. Research and evaluation to detect and counter

emerging adverse behaviors

4. Rationale for Communication

Definition and mapping of Stakeholders

Builds partnerships Creates agents of change Assures community reach bearing

in mind that the communities are more affected planners

5. Choice of communication channelsPromoting Media Mix Assure that Communication plans are part of POA/cMYP

and cover Print (leaflets, posters, Banners, Q&A, News Inserts and

advertorials) is good but has limited reach Electronic (Radio, TV and Mobile Phones) has more reach but

costs more and is limited by coverage/network range Folk media (Megaphones, Roadside shows, locally generated

drama, community events, using places of worship, etc) is more appropriate but is least thought about

Inter-personal communication (IPC), most effective 1. Face to face health Education sessions by HWs

2. House-to-House Canvassing

Audience number 1 Planners in the Ministry of

Health Donors Politicians

Audience number 2. Health communication experts Health workers Researchers

Audience number 3 Parents/Caretakers (who are

also voters) Any unintended audiences

Who, exactly, is our audience?

Media that can

reach

Key considerations of the messages

1. Does message make news: Affects lots of people, Affects them today, stirs controversy?

2. Does message have a human face?

3. Is message important for policy?

4. Is message short and simple?

5. Any hidden message? … rationale for Pretests

Formulation of Key messages (<3)?

6. Review of Past Performance in measles/Rubella communication -- Simple, consistent messagin

12

PRE-CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER VISITS DOCUMENTATION,

Dakar Region, Senegal 2010Number of H/holds visited

Total persons sensitized before volunteer visit

# of persons sensitized in H2H Visit

M'bao 1,880 135 8,213

Keur Massar 769 626 5,037

Rufisque 1,670 4256 2,067

Diamniadio 1,470 3256 1,756

Nabil choucair 2,544 1761 11,796

Philip Maguillen 1,359 1576 5,854

Gaspard Kamara 2,556 1689 18,858

Polyclinique 1,570 2539 6,265

Subtotal 13,818 15,838 59,846

Only ¼ of respondents were sensitized prior to

the H2H visit of RC volunteers

PRE-CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER VISITS DOCUMENTATION,

Tanzania; Nov 2011

425,087 (34%) H/holds were aware of the measles campaigns before theH2H visit was conducted by TRCS Volunteer

Mobile Phone supported H2H Visits Documentation, Kenya, November 2012

15

District H/Holds Visited

#Children Counted

H/Holds informed prior to the visit

# H/Holds Consenting to a measles SIA dose

% H/Hold Consenting to SIA

Embakasi/Njiru 13,401 18,761 7,604 8,648 65%Kasarani 9,434 12,264 4,824 5,428 58%Dagoreti 7,844 9,413 4,044 5,142 66%Starehe 5,480 6,576 3,480 4,861 89%Kamukunji 3,650 4,380 2,506 2,810 77%Westlands 2,464 2,218 1,426 2,160 88%Langata 2,526 2,779 1,503 2,283 90%Makadara 1,978 2,571 1,082 1,624 82%Kisumu East 15,200 19,760 9,230 12,958 85%Busia 6,459 7,751 3,149 5,082 79%Nambale 4,606 8,291 2,056 3,056 66%Total 73,042 94,764 40,904 54,052 74%

40,904 (56%) households were aware of the measles campaigns before the house visit was conducted by KRCS Volunteers

RESULTS OF SITE INTERVIEWS WITH CAREGIVERS, TWO RURAL PROVINCES COVERED BY BURUNDI RC,

2012 SIA

HOUSE VISITS

RADIO CHURCHESALL

OTHERPOPULATION

RED CROSSVOLUNTEERS

Ruyigi 23 19 7 15 50,5710 562

Gitega 32 31 23 6 92,0136 1,022

Total 55 50 30 21 1,425,846 1,584

7. Standardizing H2H measles/Rubella communication practices

H2H Canvassing Field Guide Developed in 2012 Been tested and used in 5

countries Prospects

Document use of the H2H field manual

Test use of manual in Routine EPI communication

Publish guide for global use

Anne Ray Charitable Trust

18