Graphic messages and reminders that use a shock-and-shame approach may get more people to wash their hands, according to a Kansas State University professor and his colleagues.

"Those 'Employees Must Wash Hands' signs in bathrooms may not be the most effective reminder," said Doug Powell, professor of food safety at K-State. "We wanted a comprehensive review of what others had done, and combined this with our own work on food safety messages that lead to behavior change. We weren't interested in self-reported surveys where everyone says they always wash their hands, but studies based on observed increases in handwashing compliance."

Powell worked with Casey Jacob, a former K-State research assistant in the department of diagnostic medicine and pathobiology, and Sarah Wilson, formerly of the University of Guelph. Their review of techniques to improve handwashing behavior was just published in the journal Critical Public Health.

The review was conducted as background for several ongoing experiments involving Powell and colleagues to increase handwashing rates in cafeterias, restaurants, hospitals, veterinary clinics and petting zoos. The team has previously designed handwashing campaigns at K-State involving both shock and shame.

"Social pressure, or shame, has been successfully used, especially within an entire organization," Powell said. "If you were in the bathroom at a restaurant and saw an employee not washing his or her hands, would you say, 'Dude, wash your hands?' The shock approach is designed to get people to 'be the bug' -- just for a moment -- and think about where their hands have been and where they are going to be, especially when around hospitals, food service or animals. Dangerous microorganisms move around a lot."

Behavior-change interventions to improve hand-hygiene practice: A review of alternatives to education
03.mar.11
Critical Public Health
Sarah Wilson; Casey J. Jacob; Douglas Powell
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a934338802~db=all~jumptype=rss
Despite the role of hand hygiene in preventing infectious disease, compliance remains low. Education and training are often cited as essential to developing and maintaining hand-hygiene compliance, but generally have not produced sustained improvements. Consequently, this literature review was conducted to identify alternative interventions for compelling change in hand-hygiene behavior. Of those, interventions employing social pressures have demonstrated varying influence on an individual’s behavior, while interventions that focus on organizational culture have demonstrated positive results. However, recent research indicates that handwashing is a ritualized behavior mainly performed for self-protection. Therefore, interventions that provoke emotive sensations (e.g., discomfort, disgust) or use social marketing may be the most effective.

A couple of ag journalism types from Nebraska and Ohio State have the right idea -- although I’m not sure it’s completely executed -- in a new paper examining the role of YouTube videos in food safety.

Emily Rhoades and Jason D. Ellis write in the Journal of Food Safety that food safety in restaurants is an increasing concern among consumers. A primary population segment working in foodservice is receiving food safety information through new media channels such as video social network websites. This research used content analysis to examine the purpose and messages of food safety-related videos posted to YouTube. A usable sample of 76 videos was identified using “food safety” in the YouTube search function. Results indicate that videos must be artfully developed to attract YouTube users while conveying a credible and educational message. Communicators must also monitor new media for competing messages being viewed by target audiences and devise strategies to counter such messages. This one-time snapshot of how food safety was portrayed on YouTube suggests that the intended purpose of videos, whether educational or entertainment, is not as relevant as the perceived purpose and the message being received by viewers.

I have no idea what this means. There’s a lot of BS in the paper about where foodborne illness happens and how consumers are motivated and the authors seem hopelessly stuck in the educational framework. But at least they are looking at different media. Too bad the message sucks.

Marshall McLuhan had it right when he said that those who try to distinguish between entertainment and education don’t know the first thing about either.