California Poison Control System
Health Education Program
An Overview of Research,
Development and Implementation
Since its inception in 1997, the California Poison Control System’s
(CPCS) toll-free treatment advice and referral service has responded
directly to over one million callers. In an effort to mirror and leverage
this achievement, the CPCS has initiated a remarkable phase in the expansion
of its education and outreach by choosing one simple focal point – the
consumer.
UNDERSTANDING OUR CONSUMERS
By placing consumer needs and customer satisfaction at the center of
the outreach process, the CPCS has concluded that answering “Who
will consumers listen to?” is more relevant than asking “Who
will to talk to consumers on our behalf?” The first question leads
to results, the latter to exhausted resources, and atrophied endeavors.
Although consumers may be somewhat aware of poison centers, few understand
how, or why, such services fit into their lives. An investigation into
consumer perceptions revealed not only a lack of comprehension, but also
an image of poison centers as remote, dispassionate and unapproachable.
This image was often inadvertently perpetuated by alarmist, brusque and
confusing messages that further distanced consumers.
Our objective was to employ market research methods to understand the
communication needs of consumers, particularly low-socioeconomic status
(at or below Federal poverty guidelines) parents regarding poison exposure
and treatment and to determine market position and communication strategies
for the CPCS and its hotline.
OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS
Generative research
We started with a broad, open-ended exploratory process. Projective
tools, such as image collage, were employed to aid users, in this case
educators, in expressing the critical attributes and perceptions of our
service. Knowledge gained from this process guided the development of
a design framework that set the tone for the entire process.
Evaluative research
This next phase was more focused, detail-oriented and conducted once
the initial framework and preliminary concepts had already been developed.
We aimed to assess whether particular concepts, such as the ubiquitous “call
in case of a poison emergency”, were useful, usable, and/or desirable
to target users. Evaluative tools, such as focus groups and questionnaires,
were used to record feedback regarding the concepts being tested. Knowledge
gained from the evaluative guided the design refinement process.
The CPCS research and development plan included:
- One round of qualitative focus groups across California
- Evaluative research on logo concepts and taglines
- Evaluative research on current communications materials
- Generative research on end-user behaviors and attitudes towards
poisonings
- Generative research on tools, messages and vehicles for encouraging
poison center use
- One round of quantitative research across California via intercepts
(for statistically projectable data)
- Evaluative research on logos, taglines and communications
materials
- Gather demographic, attitudinal and behavioral information
specific to poison center use and development of services (provided
baseline for evaluating effectiveness of new materials and messages
in the market)
The Fist Step: Audience analysis:
We examined the California consumer by reviewing demographic data and
investigating additional characteristics such as lifestyle, behavior
and attitudes. CPCS call data were studied to determine if a picture
of a “typical’ consumer could be realized. Data proved inconclusive
for meaningful characteristics, and we chose to instead focus on the
general mandate of Poison Control Centers to direct attention and resources
to “identified at risk populations”. If children under the
age of 5 account for the majority of poison exposures, we asked ourselves
who are their parents, where do they live, how do they behave and how
do we reach them?
Existing research pointed out that children born to low-income and low
socio-economic status (at or below Federal poverty guidelines) parents
have a higher probability of childhood injury. We created different groups,
thus creating our market segments, by identifying consumer characteristics
such as:
Demographics/Geographic
Urban/ Rural
Ethnicity and Language
Household size and occupants/number of children
Education and Income
Religion
Lifestyle/Behaviors
Home environment
Technology usage
Media habits
Shopping
Education venues: Where, what kind, child?
Leisure activities
Community participation and activities
Trusted relationships
Government/Community program involvement
Healthcare
Attitudes
Healthcare
Use of services by phone
Injury management
Parenting/childcare
Family roles and responsibilities
Receptiveness to health information
“ How to market to” info
Community
Benchmarks
Successful health programs
Successful brands
Successful campaigns and methods
Why were they successful?
What factors contributed to their success?
What can we learn?
Second Step: Market segmentation
- Define a segment of the population as our perceived and likeliest
typical user that could also function as a control group
- Segment the target market of low-SES parents, whose children at greater
risk of childhood injury, by geographic, demographic and psychological
variables, including
- Income level, insurance status, frequency of Emergency Room
visits, and presence of children under the age of 5 at home
- Four market segments were identified
- Mainstream suburban families in Northern and Southern California
(current users)
13.7% of CA pop., defined as having a household income between 30,000-74,999
- Low-SES African-Americans
6.7% of CA pop, 29% poverty rate, 2 largest concentrations in Los Angeles
County (40% of total pop) and Alameda County (9.3% of total pop)
(source: U.S. Census 2000)
- Low-SES Bilingual (English-preferred) and Monolingual, or
low-English proficiency, Latinos:
Latinos comprise 32.4% of CA population and have the lowest median
income of any group (Source: California Research Bureau, California
State Library), concentrated in L.A., Orange and San Diego counties
Third Step: Consumer feedback
Essentials of formative market research
- Concept testing and message design to define tone of voice and market
position
- Pre-testing of materials with target audience to determine relevance,
comprehension, and motivation
FOCUS GROUPS
- Qualitative research was carried out in each market segment to investigate
the terms poisoning and poison emergency
- 2 focus groups in each market segment, 4 cities, 64 participants
recruited by a professional facility, 2 hour sessions with a
professional moderator
- Participants were provided disposable cameras and asked to
take pictures of various areas and objects in their home, including
telephones, refrigerator, emergency contact lists, under the
sinks, and any things they considered dangerous or hazardous
to their young children.
- A video of a simulated unintentional poisoning was shown and
participants were asked for their reactions, feelings, and measures
they might take
- Potential solutions identified by the participants (911, ED,
etc.) were discussed and ranked according to their efficacy,
usefulness, and perceived benefit
- Participants were asked to evaluate new concepts for the poison
center identity, name and tagline. They were also asked to assess
our current identity and the national Poison Help™ logo.
Results
Participant responses across all focus groups:
- “Emergency” was defined as a life-threatening situation,
rather than any circumstance requiring urgent action
- “Poison emergency” (a frequent reference on educational
materials) was perplexing, and participants could not distinguish this
from any other urgent situation, nor did they see a good reason to
do so.
- Participants projected that they would respond to a perceived emergency
by taking urgent measures (911/ED) and to seemingly less threatening
incidents by administering a home remedy, or taking no action.
Low-SES participant responses
- Some low-SES African-American parents expressed fear over being accused
of neglect and suspicion that poison centers with allied with social
services that might take away their children.
- This group also frequently mentioned relying on family and friends
in order to avoid using social services.
- Latino parents expressed concern over not having a direct physical
examination of their child in case of a poisoning.
Mainstream Suburban Mom responses
- Participants were unlikely to think this could happen to them, many
felt they had taken adequate precautions.
- Some participants appeared contemptuous of mothers who would not
be smart enough to keep dangerous products, such as cleaning supplies,
out of reach of children.
- Suburban moms were more likely to rely on services offered by their
health plan, such as an advice nurse line
In most cases of mild to moderate exposure participants, although indicating
a strong desire to alleviate their anxiety, participants said they would
take only low-level action, such as calling a friend or relative, or
no action.
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
428 face-to-face interviews were conducted with individuals fitting
the demographic profiles of our focus groups participants in the same
geographical regions.
Selected Results
The questionnaires were designed to lead to the specifics about poisoning
prevention and knowledge about local poison control center, but the first
set of questions were general home injury prevention questions.
What do parents worry the most in regards to home safety?
Across all socio-demographic groups, parents revealed that they were
most worried about sharp objects, in order of concern, cleaning supplies
were second and electrical cords and outlets were third.
What type of home injury prevention methods do parents use?
The most common response among all groups was: “Keeping child
in sight at all times” followed by “Saying no to the child”.
Prevalence of poisonings
48% of all 428 respondents reported at least one poison incident in
the past year. This approximate 50% rate of reported poison incidents
in the last year was consistent for all socio-demographic groups.
Poison Center Awareness
Only 51% of all respondents had heard of the Poison Center. Only 48.1%
of all low-income parents had heard of the Poison Center where 59.9%
of all higher income mothers had heard of it.
The breakdown of Poison Center awareness for the low-income group resulted
in the following:
53.3% of African American parents had heard of the Poison Center.
46.0% of Hispanic bilingual parents had heard of the Poison Center.
45.5% of Hispanic monolingual parents had heard of the Poison Center.
How did parents hear about the Poison Center?
The majority of parents had learned about the Poison Center through
their pediatricians, only the Hispanic Monolingual group reported having
heard about it through the Women, Children and Infants (WIC) programs.
What is the most important characteristic of the Poison Center?
All groups concurred that knowing that the Poison Center staff are “trained
experts in poisoning” was the most important feature.
MESSAGE DEVELOPMENT -- “DON’T GUESS. BE
SURE”©
Core message shifts from “call in case of a poison emergency” to “call
if you’re not sure”.
When asked to describe what an emergency is, focus group participants
indicated this was any situation they perceived as life-threatening.
An emergency equaled impending tragedy, instinctively precipitating a
call to 911, or a trip to the ED. However, they indicated they had few
dependable resources to help manage potentially unsafe situations quickly,
appropriately and without fuss at home. The CPCS can fill this void,
offering consumers the rapid expert help and reassurance they seek.
Advancing a compelling, accurate reflection is critical in positioning
the CPCS service within the consumer’s frame of reference.
Developing a new visual identity specifically targeting the end user
to cultivate a consistent, recognizable image that advanced our core
message was critical. This identity addressed consumer perception and
harnessed universal themes so as to resonate across social, economic
and cultural lines.
Understanding bilingual and monolingual Latino consumers
Resources were invested in qualitative testing to identify significant
variations between these two groups. Monolingual and low-English proficiency
Latino consumers indicated they would use the service if they had a more
robust understanding of precisely what happens when you call. Although
consumers from other target groups expressed a general desire for more
information, Monolingual and low-English proficiency audiences sought
more detail and reassurance about the call-in process. To learn more
about understanding these consumer groups click here.
DISTRIBUTION
No organization should be assumed a natural ally.
Identifying credible sources for the dissemination of our core message
is an essential part in securing consumer confidence.
A clear, systematic and critical assessment of prospective partners
is crucial.
Prospective organizations were and continue to be assessed based on
their mission, organizational structure and effectiveness, program objectives,
scope and frequency of services, funding source, process, methodology
and perceived image. The education program has defined a manageable number
and category of organizations that closely match the CPCS mission, serve
its target audiences, operate efficiently and have earned the respect
of those they seek to serve.
Two partnership categories - Education service and Hotline service
In researching potential allies, two categories of partnership were
identified – education service and response, or “hotline” service.
Education service partners are those whose mission includes preventing
childhood injury and/or teaching preventive strategies. These organizations
are provided with thorough, on-going consultation on incorporating CPCS
poison prevention information within their existing platform. Consultations
with individual partners determine customized tools and methods for effective
delivery of the CPCS message. In helping education partners achieve their
own missions, the CPCS accomplishes its goal of becoming the leading
source for poison prevention information in California, both the public
and health professionals.
The response, or “hotline”, service supplies standard materials
to organizations with accessible distribution networks whose customers
are part of the CPCS target audience.
In order to achieve its goals for awareness and utilization, the CPCS
has harmonized activities and institute unified outreach initiatives.
Strategic associations with key partners, who are credible sources of
poison prevention information with existing distribution networks, access
to our target audience, and sound organizational structures, are critical
to success. In alignment with this new strategy, the education program
has a tighter focus - building relationships, ranking, prioritizing and
realizing opportunities, targeting activities, and allocating resources
so as to make the best use of time and money.
California
Poison Control System
1-800-222-1222. . Anytime, Anyplace in
California
Home | Public
| HCP | About
| Orders
©
CPCS and Regents, University of California. 2000-2006
Disclaimer: This web site is designed to be informational and educational.
Under no circumstance is this web site meant to replace the expert advice
of a qualified poison specialist or physician. In the event of a poison
emergency, call the nearest poison center immediately by
diaing 1-800-222-1222 or contact 9-1-1 emergency services.
|