(second migrated post from Target Population. original post available here.)
I was sipping my coffee and watching the Today Show earlier this week when hosts Matt Lauer and Meredith Vieira introduced a new miniseries within the show called “Today Calls it Quits” (available here on AOL Video). As I saw over the next several minutes, the series – produced in partnership with national nonprofit the American Legacy Foundation – aimed to help smokers kick the habit by providing medical information about the dangers of smoking and the benefits of quitting, concrete solutions and tips, and helpful resources.
As a public health student and former American Lung Association intern, I was immediately intrigued. In its first installment on January 29, 2009, the show followed two current smokers through interviews and laboratory demonstrations in a doctor’s office. Their experiences were interspersed with conversations with other health personnel that explained the immediate and long-term benefits of quitting smoking. At one point, after seeing on a filter the chemical effects of smoking a single cigarette, self-proclaimed social smoker Maurizio reacted simply but honestly. “Wow,” he said, pausing for a moment, “that scares me.”
Maurizio’s reaction and self-preservation speak to just one of the benefits of quitting that the American Legacy Foundation hopes to convey in the series, according to their press release. With two initial installments broadcasted on January 29 and 30 and on-air follow-ups scheduled for March, the series profiles three parents and other adults who aim to quit for other reasons as well, such as setting a good example for their children. In addition to TV, the effort includes online components and partners as well, including placement on the Today Show’s homepage, online chatting capability, and links to quit plan website BecomeAnEX.org.
The kind of information presented on Tuesday’s installment was nothing new – a filter blackened by exposure to cigarette smoke is a familiar image from our elementary school science and health classes, and I recognized the benefits of quitting from a popular poster accompanying the 2004 Surgeon General’s Report. What was new about the campaign, however, was its form. Antismoking public service announcements (PSAs) have been around for ages, as have socially conscious episodes addressing health issues as part of popular sitcoms and family dramas. Much has been said in recent years about the health communication potential of telenovelas – how they have been used to bring up issues and convey health information, and how they can further be leveraged.
But this was my first exposure to health messaging within a fact-based show. Its placement caught me off guard, as I’m sure it did others, and in our era of media oversaturation, getting the audience’s attention by surprising them is a great first step. It included the personal stories of a variety of individuals, aiming for and achieving relatability. The resources included at the end of the segment gave viewers something concrete and measurable to do. All in all, it seems to be a promising, innovative effort and I’m curious to see what will come of it.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
first, do no harm. what next?
(migrating over a couple of my entries from my grad school's public health blog, Target Population)
When entering medical school, one of the first principles taught to aspiring physicians is primum non nocere, or as we may more commonly know it, “first, do no harm.” While it obligates doctors to avoid intentionally or unnecessarily risking their patients’ well-being – something we can all agree is positive – determining what sort of treatment they are obligated to provide is a little trickier.
CNN reported on a recent study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, which found that 45% of internists in the Chicago area had used a placebo in clinical practice at some point in their career. Placebos, usually in the form of sugar pills or another inert agent, are traditionally used as controls in studies testing the effectiveness of new treatments. The aim is to avoid patients reporting symptom improvement simply because they received medication and expect to feel better.
This “placebo effect” was mentioned in the scientific literature as early as 1920, and has been documented and tested since Henry Beecher’s 1955 paper “The powerful placebo.” Its strength is still being debated, but according to the JGIM study, 96% of physicians believed that placebos could have therapeutic effects, and up to 40% believed that positive physiological effects were possible for certain health conditions.
However, the fact remains that only 4% of those who used placebos in clinical practice admitted it to the patients involved. While knowing that your medication is inert would certainly diminish its potential effectiveness as a placebo, what about the motives involved? The majority of physicians administered them to patients who were upset, in order to calm them down. But once the patient is calmed down, what prevents doctors from admitting to the treatment after the fact? The ethics of keeping the patient in the dark even then is at questionable at best.
When entering medical school, one of the first principles taught to aspiring physicians is primum non nocere, or as we may more commonly know it, “first, do no harm.” While it obligates doctors to avoid intentionally or unnecessarily risking their patients’ well-being – something we can all agree is positive – determining what sort of treatment they are obligated to provide is a little trickier.
CNN reported on a recent study in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, which found that 45% of internists in the Chicago area had used a placebo in clinical practice at some point in their career. Placebos, usually in the form of sugar pills or another inert agent, are traditionally used as controls in studies testing the effectiveness of new treatments. The aim is to avoid patients reporting symptom improvement simply because they received medication and expect to feel better.
This “placebo effect” was mentioned in the scientific literature as early as 1920, and has been documented and tested since Henry Beecher’s 1955 paper “The powerful placebo.” Its strength is still being debated, but according to the JGIM study, 96% of physicians believed that placebos could have therapeutic effects, and up to 40% believed that positive physiological effects were possible for certain health conditions.
However, the fact remains that only 4% of those who used placebos in clinical practice admitted it to the patients involved. While knowing that your medication is inert would certainly diminish its potential effectiveness as a placebo, what about the motives involved? The majority of physicians administered them to patients who were upset, in order to calm them down. But once the patient is calmed down, what prevents doctors from admitting to the treatment after the fact? The ethics of keeping the patient in the dark even then is at questionable at best.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
starbucks wisdom
Saw this on the back of a co-worker's Starbucks this morning and I thought it was a gem:
"The irony of commitment is that it's deeply liberating -- in work, in play, in love."--The Way I See It, #76
Monday, January 19, 2009
strictly an observer
Today is Martin Luther King Jr's birthday. May he rest in peace.
As someone who stood up openly for the rights of others, his legacy makes me think about my own way of dealing with injustices, from the big ones that shape people's entire lives to the little ones that make or break their day. When it comes to conflict, I tend to be an observer. When the stakes aren't high - and let's face it, in my fairly mundane life, they usually aren't - being an observer is way more fun. It's a lot easier to make snarky comments, egg on both sides, and note lapses in logic and consistency when you're an outsider. You're everyone's confidante and no one's enemy. You don't have to worry about it. It's a pretty good life.
Most of the time. As Penny Lane said in Almost Famous, "...never take it seriously. If you never take it seriously, you'll never get hurt. If you never get hurt, you'll always have fun." But on days like today, when we honor MLK and other symbols of today's safer, more equitable (though far from perfect) world, I wonder if forgetting the fun and letting yourself get hurt once in a while can be a good thing. I should give it a try.
As someone who stood up openly for the rights of others, his legacy makes me think about my own way of dealing with injustices, from the big ones that shape people's entire lives to the little ones that make or break their day. When it comes to conflict, I tend to be an observer. When the stakes aren't high - and let's face it, in my fairly mundane life, they usually aren't - being an observer is way more fun. It's a lot easier to make snarky comments, egg on both sides, and note lapses in logic and consistency when you're an outsider. You're everyone's confidante and no one's enemy. You don't have to worry about it. It's a pretty good life.
Most of the time. As Penny Lane said in Almost Famous, "...never take it seriously. If you never take it seriously, you'll never get hurt. If you never get hurt, you'll always have fun." But on days like today, when we honor MLK and other symbols of today's safer, more equitable (though far from perfect) world, I wonder if forgetting the fun and letting yourself get hurt once in a while can be a good thing. I should give it a try.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
oh so exotic
Last night, I was chatting with a friend about music, and he mentioned how he thought M.I.A. and the lead singer from CSS ("Music is My Hot Hot Sex" from that 2007 iPod commercial) were similar. I asked how - I love M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes" but that iPod commercial usually prompted me to either hit the mute button or brush my teeth, depending on the time of day - and he said they were both exotic female singers. A quick Wikipedia check showed me that one was Indian and the other was half-Japanese.
Being a second-generation Indian born and raised in Northern California, neither sounded all that exotic to me. But it happens all the time. I can't tell you the number of times I've been at a bar and some guy has excitedly said to me, "Are you Indian? I studied there for a year," or "I have an Indian friend," or something along those lines. And I never know how to react. I mean, really? Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Does it make it more likely that you'll make friends with another one, such as me? (Is friendship what you're really looking for, anyway?) Now if you said you had a movie star friend, you might have my attention. Don't get me wrong, I've read the Game, I know you're trying to make a connection, and I appreciate that. But a simple "hi" will do. This sort of thing is actually a turnoff.
It happens in other situations as well. Several years ago, I went to a picnic with my mom and little sister. We didn't really know anyone, and being at that funny early teenage age where we were too old to run around with the kids, my sister and I got roped into awkward small talk with a (well-intentioned, I'm sure) lady there. It ended up being half an hour of awed questions about our ethnicity peppered with random facts from her old history books. Like the bar guys, I'm sure she meant well and was just trying to be friendly, but there was plenty more to talk about. My sister and I are not boring people, and whatever happened to the old standby, "So what grade are you in?", anyway?
And it can have stronger consequences than annoying a potential new acquaintance. A friend of mine was dumped a few months back by a guy for whom, she was convinced, she was "his wild Asian oat." That theory hadn't occurred to me - I was more inclined to simply call him an all-around jerk, out of loyalty - but it made me wonder. If it was true, how far can the novelty of being exotic go? How far should it go? What happens when it wears off?
And what are the morals of this sort of novelty, anyway? I have to admit that I consciously seek out friends who are different from me; the novelty of their experiences, personality, and hobbies makes them interesting. Is my choosing them for those criteria any different than their choosing me for my ethnicity? In short, are there more and less appropriate reasons for choosing a friend, or do the ends justify the means?
Being a second-generation Indian born and raised in Northern California, neither sounded all that exotic to me. But it happens all the time. I can't tell you the number of times I've been at a bar and some guy has excitedly said to me, "Are you Indian? I studied there for a year," or "I have an Indian friend," or something along those lines. And I never know how to react. I mean, really? Am I supposed to be impressed by that? Does it make it more likely that you'll make friends with another one, such as me? (Is friendship what you're really looking for, anyway?) Now if you said you had a movie star friend, you might have my attention. Don't get me wrong, I've read the Game, I know you're trying to make a connection, and I appreciate that. But a simple "hi" will do. This sort of thing is actually a turnoff.
It happens in other situations as well. Several years ago, I went to a picnic with my mom and little sister. We didn't really know anyone, and being at that funny early teenage age where we were too old to run around with the kids, my sister and I got roped into awkward small talk with a (well-intentioned, I'm sure) lady there. It ended up being half an hour of awed questions about our ethnicity peppered with random facts from her old history books. Like the bar guys, I'm sure she meant well and was just trying to be friendly, but there was plenty more to talk about. My sister and I are not boring people, and whatever happened to the old standby, "So what grade are you in?", anyway?
And it can have stronger consequences than annoying a potential new acquaintance. A friend of mine was dumped a few months back by a guy for whom, she was convinced, she was "his wild Asian oat." That theory hadn't occurred to me - I was more inclined to simply call him an all-around jerk, out of loyalty - but it made me wonder. If it was true, how far can the novelty of being exotic go? How far should it go? What happens when it wears off?
And what are the morals of this sort of novelty, anyway? I have to admit that I consciously seek out friends who are different from me; the novelty of their experiences, personality, and hobbies makes them interesting. Is my choosing them for those criteria any different than their choosing me for my ethnicity? In short, are there more and less appropriate reasons for choosing a friend, or do the ends justify the means?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Overheard at Work #2
"I had a long island iced tea...they put so much alcohol in that! It's probably just a little bit of iced tea and the rest is alcohol! But anyway, I had a ball, I had a ball..."
I don't think it needs any context :)
I don't think it needs any context :)
Friday, November 21, 2008
Overheard at Work #1
With all the new technology that's become indispensable in the last few years, is it ironic that over mobile internet and GPS, the item I really wish I had with me all the time is a simple tape recorder? Probably. But, strange as it may be, I would love the ability to capture snippets of life and the conversations around me and save them somehow, before they give way to more mundane daily tasks and are forgotten. Sometimes they're interesting insights, sometimes they're issues or ideas I want to look into more, and sometimes they're just plain funny.
But barring a trek out to the nearest electronics store to track down a tape recorder (do they even make them anymore?), the next best solution may be to record them here. So, here goes:
Overheard at Work #1: "So does the rest of Massachusetts not have an accent then?"
I definitely giggled.
But barring a trek out to the nearest electronics store to track down a tape recorder (do they even make them anymore?), the next best solution may be to record them here. So, here goes:
Overheard at Work #1: "So does the rest of Massachusetts not have an accent then?"
I definitely giggled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)