You are here

In This Section:

National Survey of Public Health Competencies in Social Marketing: Survey of State Health Departments

Description: 

The National Survey of Public Health Competencies in Social Marketing: Survey of State Health Departments is conducted by Florida State University, Florida Prevention Research Center

Supplier: 
Florida Prevention Research Center, College of Public Health, University of South Florida
Data Years Available: 
2012
Periodicity: 
3 times between 2010 and 2020, with data available in 2015 and 2018
Mode of Collection: 
Survey sent to all 50 state health departments
Selected Content: 
The National Survey of Public Health Competencies in Social Marketing: Survey of State Health Departments assess the use, and extent of use of state health departments social media in promoting public health messages.
Population Covered: 
The target popuilation is state health departments.
Methodology: 

The survey is sent to all 50 state health departments.The Survey is completed by a contact person in the state health department. The survey team contacted members of the National Public Health Information Coalition (NPHIC) in each health department. NPHIC is the professional group for communicators in health departments. The NPHIC members identified the appropriate health department person to complete the survey. They were asked to report the percentage of their current health promotion and disease prevention programs that met social marketing criteria using a 100-point scale: “None or almost none,” “Some or a few programs,” “A moderate number of programs,” “Most of our programs,” and “All of almost every program”

Response Rates and Sample Size: 

35 responded, and the survey team validated 29 respondents, representing 29 different states.

Interpretation Issues: 

Reliability
• It is not known whether respondents would provide comparable data if questioned again in the same manner (i.e., test-retest reliability).
• Counter: Researchers with the Florida Prevention Research Center and Social Marketing Group are planning a follow-up study to assess the test-retest reliability of baseline data.
• Similarly, it is not known if others privy to the same information as respondents would provide comparable data if posed with the same questions.
• Counter: Researchers with the Florida Prevention Research Center and Social Marketing Group are planning a follow-up study to assess the inter-rater reliability of baseline data.
Validity
• Due to the self-reported nature of the data, it is not known how valid the participants‘ responses are, for example, to the eight social marketing benchmark questions.
• Counter: USF faculty and staff conducted much preliminary work to test out the research approach.
• Counter: The term ―social marketing‖ was not used until after the eight benchmark questions, which likely reduced demand bias.
• Counter: Researchers with the Florida Prevention Research Center and Social Marketing Group are planning a follow-up study to assess aspects of measurement validity.

Generalizability
• The final results are based on data from only 29 out of 50 state health departments.
• Counter: 70 percent of NPHIC representatives participated but some data had to be excluded for program areas not indicative of disease prevention and health promotion.
• Counter: The response rate is comparable to at least one published account of survey research involving state and local health department professionals (Dreisinger et al., 2008).
• Counter: The project had a limited budget to conduct a survey representative of all state health departments; time was also donated in-kind by USF faculty and staff but certain compromises had to be made.
• It is not known how comparable respondents and non-respondents are in terms of factors that might influence the use of social marketing.
• Counter: To maintain anonymity of (non-)respondents, results had to be reported in the aggregate.
• The final results are based on data only from the largest program area(s) within state health departments.
• Counter: The project had a limited budget and certain compromises had to be made; but the approach is more defensible than classifying a health department as a user of social marketing if, for example, it had a singular program running a small social marketing campaign.

References: 
N/A