Channels and vehicles of communication: the asbestos awareness campaign

Our plain-English summary of Channels and vehicles of communication: the asbestos awareness campaign, by V.S. Freimuth, J.P. Van Nevel (American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 1993).

The study

• Authors: V.S. Freimuth, J.P. Van Nevel
• Journal: American Journal of Industrial Medicine
• Published: 1993;23(1):105-11
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

In April 1978, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare launched a multimedia campaign to inform doctors, workers, and others about the increased risks of asbestos exposure. Unlike most worker notification efforts, this one has no lists of workers or even of workplaces but faced the challenge of locating people who had worked in the shipbuilding industries more than 30 years earlier. Multiple mass media channels were used, but since most messages were distributed as public service announcements, gatekeepers were critical to the success of the campaign. Some campaign messages were aired, but mostly at hours other than prime time, and the coverage focused more on the controversial, fast-breaking events rather than on estimates of risk or on behaviors to reduce risk. The campaign was effective in increasing the number of people who believed they were at risk, but was less successful with older Americans than with manual laborers.

In plain English

This article was a case study of the Asbestos Awareness Campaign, launched in April 1978 by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to inform doctors, workers and others about the risks of asbestos exposure. Lacking lists of exposed workers or workplaces, it targeted 16 high-priority media markets with many potentially exposed people. Television announcements went to 656 stations and radio announcements to 3,864. Monitoring found that only 33 of 299 announcements tracked in the high-priority markets aired in prime time. Of 506 newspaper articles analyzed, only 5% estimated how many local people might be affected. In Gallup surveys of about 1,500 people per round, the share believing it very or somewhat likely they had been exposed rose from 26% to 33% overall, from 19% to 25% among those 50 and over, and from 27% to 38% among manual laborers. Asked without suggested answers how exposed people could reduce their health risks, 2% of respondents cited stopping smoking before the campaign and 5% after. The authors concluded that mass media can work for such campaigns, but gatekeepers' role must be carefully considered.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Descriptive case study of a national mass-media worker notification campaign, using process data (station postcards, broadcast monitoring, newspaper content analysis, information requests) and three waves of a national probability survey
• Who was studied: The campaign targeted former and current asbestos-exposed workers in the United States, with 16 high-priority media markets. It was evaluated with Gallup national surveys of about 1,500 personal interviews in each of three waves (June 1978, October 1978, February 1979). The subgroups analyzed were people aged 50 or over and manual laborers.
• Exposure: The article studied a communication campaign, not a health exposure. Its subject was asbestos exposure in general; no fiber types are named. Most exposed people were former workers, over half of them exposed in World War II shipyards. Current workers included those in asbestos mining and processing, construction, automotive brake and clutch work, and asbestos product manufacture.
• Main results:
  • Postcards sent with the announcement packages were returned by 29% of the 656 television stations and 16% of the 3,864 radio stations.
  • Of the 299 announcements monitored over 4 months in the high-priority markets, only 33 were shown in prime time.
  • Airing varied widely between high-priority markets: the Tidewater market aired the spots 75 times, while Charleston stations aired them only four times.
  • Of 506 newspaper articles analyzed, few (5%) estimated the percentage of local people who might be affected by asbestos exposure.
  • Only 19,936 calls and/or letters requesting information were recorded during the campaign.
  • After the campaign, awareness of asbestos was 68% in the overall sample, 72% among those 50 and over, and 67% among manual laborers. All three were significantly higher than the June 1978 baseline.
  • In the overall sample, knowledge that asbestos exposure raises illness risk rose nine percentage points, from 58% to 67%. The increase was larger (16%) among manual laborers.
  • Survey respondents were asked, without suggested answers, what exposed people could do to reduce their health risks. The share who cited stopping smoking was 2% before the campaign and 5% after.
  • Recognition that installing and replacing brake linings is a source of exposure stayed relatively low, at about three in 10 respondents.
  • The share who said they had very or somewhat likely been exposed to asbestos rose from 26% to 33% in the overall sample, from 19% to 25% among those 50 and over, and from 27% to 38% among manual laborers.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the campaign raised awareness of the dangers of asbestos exposure and increased knowledge, especially among manual laborers. Two knowledge objectives were not met: the importance of not smoking, and possible exposure from brake lining work. They concluded that mass media can be effective channels, but the role of gatekeepers must be carefully considered.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • Station postcard responses correlate poorly with whether the announcements were actually aired.
  • Greater newspaper coverage in high-priority areas may reflect local newsworthiness rather than the campaign's efforts.

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Asbestos Exposure.

Related studies

• Asbestos disease risk communication conducted by the New Jersey Department of Health — M. Stanbury, G. Solice-Sample, et al. (1993)
• Communication of a mesothelioma diagnosis: developing recommendations to improve the patient experience — B.H. Taylor, C. Warnock, et al. (2019)
• Experiences of a state-sponsored notification and screening program for asbestos workers — A.P. Bender, A.N. Williams, et al. (1993)
• Assessing quality of life when planning and evaluating worker notification programs: two case examples — B.E. Meyerowitz (1993)
• Banning asbestos in Asia: campaigns and strategies by the Asian Network for the Rights of Occupational Accident Victims (ANROAV) — S. Pandita (2006)
• Principal components analysis to identify influences on research communication and engagement during an environmental disaster — C.A. Winters, C.F. Moore, et al. (2016)

Browse more research in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or return to medical research.