Communication in Practice
12th Annual Measles & Rubella Initiative Meeting
10th-11th September, 2013
RJ Davis, WB Mbabazi, M Charles, A Patel
1
“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
Sender
Objective
Message
Response
Response
Channels
Audience
Measles/Rubella Control/Elimination
1.
2.
3.
High morbidity and mortality disease entities;
Spread easily and fast causing epidemics
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)
b)
4.
Through Routine (MSD)
SIAs/Mass Vaccination Campaigns
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Community mobilization
Early detection/notification of measles/Rubella
epidemics
Active case research/reporting
High-risk populations surveillance
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 channels
Promoting 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.
2.
Face to face health Education sessions by HWs
House-to-House Canvassing
Who, exactly, is our audience?

Media
that
can
reach

Audience number 1

Planners in the Ministry of
Health


Donors
Politicians
Audience number 2.




Audience number 3


Health communication experts
Health workers
Researchers
Parents/Caretakers (who are
also voters)
Any unintended audiences
Formulation of Key messages (<3)?
Key considerations of the messages
Does message make news:
1.

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
6. Review of Past Performance in
measles/Rubella communication
-- Simple, consistent messagin
12
PRE-CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER VISITS DOCUMENTATION,
Dakar Region, Senegal 2010
Number of
H/holds
visited
M'bao
Total persons
sensitized before
volunteer visit
# of persons
sensitized in
H2H Visit
1,880
135
8,213
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
13,818
15,838
59,846
Keur Massar
Subtotal
Only ¼ of
respondents were
sensitized prior to
the H2H visit of RC
volunteers
PRE-CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEER VISITS DOCUMENTATION,
Tanzania; Nov 2011
REGION
*Target
No. of
H/holds
H/holds H/holds Children
visited
(n)
(n)
% of
# of
visited
(%)
HH with measles SIA
Parents that agreed
information before
to send children for
registered TRCS volunteers visit
(n)
Yes
No
vaccination
Yes
No
Arusha
331,540
289,767
87.4
300,306
28,325
261,442
288,234
1,533
Dar Es
359,086
335,596
93.5
426,010
66,620
268,976
331,335
4,261
Mara
301,335
292,157
91.1
396,239
165,154
84,066
284,249
7,908
Tabora
364,258
329,222
86.3
565,244
164,988
149,441
320,109
9,113
1,356,219 1,246,742
92
1,687,799
425,087
763,925
1,223,927
22,815
Salaam
Total
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
District
Embakasi/Njiru
H/Holds
Visited
#Children
Counted
H/Holds informed # H/Holds Consenting
prior to the visit
to a measles SIA dose
% H/Hold
Consenting to SIA
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%
15,200
19,760
9,230
12,958
85%
6,459
7,751
3,149
5,082
79%
4,606
73,042
8,291
94,764
2,056
40,904
3,056
54,052
66%
Kisumu East
Busia
Nambale
Total
74%
40,904 (56%) households were aware of the measles campaigns
15
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 CHURCHES
ALL
RED CROSS
POPULATION
OTHER
VOLUNTEERS
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