Rapid evidence summary: Mass media interventions
With COVID-19 forcing humanitarians to rethink how we deliver life-saving interventions, do mass media interventions effectively work?
COVID-19 is forcing humanitarians to rethink how we deliver life-saving interventions, while minimizing the risk of transmission to vulnerable populations. One potential avenue is through mass media interventions. Mass media generally refers to radio, TV, video, print and the Internet, and can take different forms, such as radio variety shows, soap operas, music videos, billboards, and interactive websites. But what does the literature have to say about the effect mass media can have in achieving our desired goals?
To answer this question, we reviewed available literature on the impacts of mass media interventions, focusing primarily on systematic reviews, impact assessments, and other syntheses. We found that the impact of mass media interventions is mixed. Systemic reviews found small to medium impacts on knowledge outcomes and reduction of some high-risk behaviors. However, the systematic literature focuses on health multi-component interventions often implemented in low to middle-income settings. The few studies within each review, which are relevant to IRC’s contexts, were conducted in more stable countries such as Tanzania, Uganda and Bangladesh. The quality of the systematic reviews is questionable since the reviews did not include an assessment of the quality of the studies of the evidence of the risk of bias.
Impact assessments were conducted in Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, Malawi, and Ghana, and covered outcomes such as the adoption of family planning methods, conflict reduction, HIV stigma reduction, and prevention of under-5 child deaths through various mass media interventions. For example, an impact assessment of a radio campaign in Burkina Faso showed that there was little or no difference in habitual family behaviors for improving the chances of survival for under-5 year children. However, there was some uptake in episodic behaviors like seeking medical care for diarrhea. Habitual behaviors may be difficult to change when they involve tradition and strong cultural beliefs. It has also been suggested that mass media interventions are more likely to succeed when they are part of a multi-component intervention strategy.
Another impact assessment of a radio show in the Democratic Republic of Congo, showed strong but unexpected effects. It successfully increased interpersonal discussion among listeners. However, relative to baseline listeners who were exposed to the same topics but not encouraged to discuss, talk show listeners demonstrated more negative attitudes and fewer helping behaviors toward disliked groups.
Overall, the literature focuses on short-term effects (e.g. 1 year after the intervention). While radio programming may show some promise, it is important to reflect carefully on the outcome of focus (knowledge vs. attitudes vs. behaviors), the preferences and experiences of the specific target population as well as the norms, institutions and other initiatives occurring within the given environment.
As we grapple with identifying the most cost effective methods for delivering critical information to those we serve, the literature highlights the importance of not just how we send information but how we frame it. One group that has been pulling on Behavioral Science to provide guidance around communication is Ideas42. Check out their recommendations for communicating information with the goal of shifting behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read the full rapid evidence review for more details on the interventions, results, limitations, and links studies.
Stay tuned for more evidence reviews on a variety of interventions here.
