![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Background: The public is hungry for easily understood health information they can use immediately. Traditional scientific explanations might not satisfy this need. Yet, when modified for its audience, behavioral change can take place. Scientists and communicators view and express information differently. Although scientists expertly relate scientific information to other scientists, they are often unaware of proven strategies for communicating effectively with the public. This limitation can be overcome by understanding the principles of each discipline and learning from each other.
Program background: Our teaching example is the CDC Vital Signs program, a large and successful national health communication program begun in 2010 that uses a spectrum of current media techniques. Each month CDC Vital Signspresents a leading public health topic based on the latest national data. A call-to-action is addressed to key groups responsible for change. The scientific foundation is an MMWR report written in technical language. More than 20 complimentary clear language communication products are simultaneously released, most translated into Spanish. Vital Signs brings experts in science, communications and policy together to negotiate aspects of public communication, such as nuances of statement, use of clear communication, and development of key messages and their graphic display. Accord is reached through mutual respect, internal trial-and-error of logistic issues, heeding after-action recommendations, and identifying leaders of communication, policy, and science and keeping them working together. Cooperation and collaboration are objectives practiced frequently—at the initial kick-off discussion to develop the topic, during a 3-hour roundtable discussion weeks later to hammer out the primary clear communication tool, during multiple three-way reviews, and in media training of the scientists.
Evaluation Methods and Results: Both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of Vital Signs show that scientists and communicators see its value. Science programs using Vital Signs methods have won CDC Honor’s Awards in several scientific categories, including Quantitative Sciences, Health Impact, and Health Equity. Vital Signs won the HHSInnovates Award (Secretary’s Pick) because of its unique approach and unusually wide reach—700+ media stories each month. Evaluation research on the distribution and uptake of Vital Signs show that about 3 in 4 local health departments and 9 in 10 state health departments are aware of Vital Signs and use it in their work and many use it to inform policy decisions.
Conclusions: This session will be a unique opportunity to better understand why scientists and communicators express themselves differently, an important first step to being productive together. Organizations that release technical information to non-expert audiences could adapt the Vital Signs process to help ensure scientifically accurate clear communication.
Implications for research and/or practice: This model can be readily adopted by groups of various means because its program components and size can be scaled to meet constraints of time and resources. The concepts of collaboration and understanding fit with other cultures as well. The program has been adapted by the United Kingdom, with interest by Shanghai CDC and other countries.