through phone, text and other the test thus allowing them to make means. When evaluating the informed decisions about it. This also campaigns success it found 28% of influenced and impacted the attitude those who had been involved went of healthcare professionals on to quit smoking. Furthermore, 57% themselves, who did not promote of continuing smokers attempted to tests and screening for prostate quit again within 6 months (corporate cancer prior to this campaign. culture, 2010). Overall 81% of the people who visited the campaign Evidence suggested; “inconsistent trailer stated that they had been practice amongst GPs prevents many encouraged to quit and 75% of the men who are not of recommended the service to another. prostate cancer from receiving 84% of users who received the information about the test” quit kit felt that it made quitting (prostatecancer.org, 2013). The easier to consider (corporate culture, ability of the campaign to lobby the 2010). Following a positive pilot UK national screening committee period in February 2010, the consultation led to informed GP campaign was continued until March knowledge and persuasion in GP 2011 (corporate culture). This informing men of the pros and cons campaign demonstrates the strengths of the test. This reveals the ability of of targeting a large segment of the this campaign to improve knowledge population (of which men are), of not only men, but also healthcare offering sufficient incentives and professionals. By targeting MPs and maximising awareness through political reform towards health, it advertising. allowed the campaign this success in targeting different audiences. Its particular ability in informing men and provoking change in their Case Study C: Prostate Cancer UK Mass knowledge and attitude is a particular Campaign success that could be used and The important aspect of this mass adapted to reducing men’s reticence campaign is its ability to lobby to visit GPs. Similarities between this Government for change. The campaign for prostate cancer and ‘Pledge for Prostate Cancer’ campaign placed men’s reticence to visiting the GP lie pressure on MP’s to reduce in the attempt to improve awareness inequalities and improve services for about an issue and prevent fatalities, prostate cancer (prostatecancer.org, suggesting transferability in the use of 2013). This was ultimately successful this campaign to improving men’s in advancing the PSA visitation of GPs. test for men, as men Solutions became aware of the option to take
through phone, text and other means. When evaluating the campaigns success it found 28% of those who had been involved went on to quit smoking. Furthermore, 57% of continuing smokers attempted to quit again within 6 months (corporate culture, 2010). Overall 81% of the people who visited the campaign trailer stated that they had been encouraged to quit and 75% recommended the service to another. 84% of users who received the quit kit felt that it made quitting easier to consider (corporate culture, 2010). Following a positive pilot period in February 2010, the campaign was continued until March 2011 (corporate culture). This campaign demonstrates the strengths of targeting a large segment of the population (of which men are), offering sufficient incentives and maximising awareness through advertising. Case Study C: Prostate Cancer UK Mass Campaign The important aspect of this mass campaign is its ability to lobby Government for change. The ‘Pledge for Prostate Cancer’ campaign placed pressure on MP’s to reduce inequalities and improve services for prostate cancer (prostatecancer.org, 2013). This was ultimately successful in advancing the PSA test for men, as men became aware of the option to take the test thus allowing them to make informed decisions about it. This also influenced and impacted the attitude of healthcare professionals themselves, who did not promote tests and screening for prostate cancer prior to this campaign. Evidence suggested; “inconsistent practice amongst GPs prevents many of the men who are not of prostate cancer from receiving information about the test” (prostatecancer.org, 2013). The ability of the campaign to lobby the UK national screening committee consultation led to informed GP knowledge and persuasion in GP informing men of the pros and cons of the test. This reveals the ability of this campaign to improve knowledge of not only men, but also healthcare professionals. By targeting MPs and political reform towards health, it allowed the campaign this success in targeting different audiences. Its particular ability in informing men and provoking change in their knowledge and attitude is a particular success that could be used and adapted to reducing men’s reticence to visit GPs. Similarities between this campaign for prostate cancer and men’s reticence to visiting the GP lie in the attempt to improve awareness about an issue and prevent fatalities, suggesting transferability in the use of this campaign to improving men’s visitation of GPs. Solutions