IV. PUBLICITY

Mothers were asked whether they had heard or read about immunisation in newspapers or magazines, on the radio, at the cinema or on posters, and also whether, it had been brought to their notice by means of a leaflet from the school or from the health visitor. The last piece of information had already been collected in some cases in answer to a question “Who suggested that the child should be immunised?” (See section V).

The great majority of mothers had seen posters about immunisation and three quarters had seen statements in newspapers or magazines. As many as half had heard about immunisation on the radio and 40% had done so at the cinema.

The last medium, leaflets from school or from the health visitor, differs from other media in that persuasion is directed at individuals personally.

Analysis by Type of Area

Radio publicity reached about equal proportions of mothers in different types of area, but there are differences with other media, A higher proportion of those living in small towns and country districts than of those living, in large towns, had seen statements about immunisation in the press. National newspapers are read about the same proportion of the general public in different types of area, but local weekly or bi-weekly papers are read very much more in small towns and in the country than in large towns. * During the few months preceding the inquiry statements about immunisation were published extensively in local paper and this might account for the difference.

A relatively small proportion of those living in rural areas had come across cinema publicity. This might be expected since people living in the country do not go to cinemas nearly as much as people living in towns. ø

Posters were seen more frequently by mothers living in towns, and there is probably more opportunity for displaying posters in urban than in rural areas.

A considerably higher proportion of mothers living in large towns than of those living in small towns and in the country had received leaflets about immunisation from school or from the health visitor.

In spite of these differences in the impact of publicity on mothers living in the three types of area, the incidence of immunisation does not vary much between one type and another, as was shown in Section II.

Analysis by Region

All types of publicity were noticed with average or higher than average frequency in London.

The proportion seeing statements in newspapers or magazines was relatively low in the Northern region, and it is known from the inquiry mentioned above that newspapers are read rather less in the North than elsewhere.

It will be remembered that a lower proportion of children had been immunised in the North than in other regions, although the level of knowledge about diphtheria was not low in this region.

Radio publicity had been heard by a relatively high proportion in London and a relatively low proportion in the North. Posters had been seen rather more in London than elsewhere.

The proportion of mothers who had received leaflets from school or from health visitors is low in the South and East. This region has a relatively high proportion of the population living in small towns and in the country, and leaflets were received less frequently in these types of area, than in the larger towns. The high proportion living in rural areas in this region may also account for the low figure for cinemas, 32% as compared with 40% for the country as a whole.

Analysis by Economic Group

It is known from, surveys made previously that a higher proportion of people read newspapers and have wireless sets in the higher economic group than in the lower groups, and more of the mothers in the higher group had come across publicity about immunisation in the newspapers and on one radio.

A higher proportion of people in the lower and middle economic groups than in the higher group go to the cinema regularly, and rather more mothers in these groups had seen cinema publicity.

There is less difference between the groups in respect of the proportions seeing posters.

Mothers in the higher group less frequently received leaflets from school or from the health visitor than those in the middle and lower groups, probably because the leaflets are distributed mainly by the public elementary schools and because the work of health visitors is concentrated in the poorer areas.

Analysis by education showed similar differences between the higher and lower groups as are shown between the higher and lower economic groups.

Analysis by Age

A higher proportion of the younger mothers had noticed publicity about immunisation at the cinema. It is known that in general younger people go to the cinema more frequently than older people and it is probable that younger mothers go more frequently than older mothers. The proportions of mothers aged under 30, 30 to 39 and 40 and over who had seen publicity at the cinema were respectively 49%, 40%, and 34%.

Posters were noticed slightly more by the younger than by the older mothers. 90% of the mothers aged under 30 had seen these, compared with 82% of mothers aged over 40.

On the other hand more of the older mothers had received leaflets about immunisation, no doubt because more of them had children of school are and the number of leaflets distributed by schools is greater than the number distributed by health visitors.

60% of mothers who had children of school age had received leaflets as compared with only 32% of mothers who had children aged under five only.

Analysis by whether or not children were Immunised

In this analysis as before mothers who only had children under one year old were excluded.

The table below shows the proportions of mothers who had noticed publicity of the different sorts having one or more of their children immunised. In this table percentages are based on the numbers noticing and not noticing publicity. Thus 83% of mothers who had seen a statement about immunisation in a newspaper or magazine had had one or more of their children immunised, as compared with 75% of those who had not seen statements in newspapers or magazines. 1869 mothers had seen such statements and 593 had not.

As might be expected higher proportions of those who had noticed publicity than of those who had not, had had one or more of their children immunised. The figures given above should not however be taken as an indication of the relative effectiveness of different media, since most mothers had come across publicity through more than one medium. Also it is not known whether the children were immunised before or after publicity of particular sorts was noticed. It is quite probable that mothers who had already had a child immunised would be more likely than others to notice publicity.

An attempt was made to isolate those noticing publicity through different media, and three groups of mothers were separated out for this purpose (i) Those who had seen statements in newspapers or magazines but had not heard about immunisation on the radio. (ii) Those who had heard statements on the radio but had not seen them in newspapers or magazines, and (iii) Those who had seen posters but had not seen or heard statements about immunisation in newspapers or magazines or on the radio. The first two groups do not exclude mothers who had seen posters. The numbers are too small, to make this possible. For the same reason those seeing statements at the cinema cannot be isolated. The proportions of the three groups having one or more of their children immunised are almost exactly the same.

Mothers in the three groups might of course have been subject also to influence from the school or health visitor, or from cinema publicity.

The results are inconclusive. It is not possible to say that any one medium is more effective than any other, but it is clear from the results given previously that the total effect of publicity has been considerable. Also, it is shown the next section, that 36% of children who had been immunised were immunised as a result of the mother’s “own idea”, coming from general publicity, and not as a result of the particular influence of the school, health visitor, welfare clinic, or doctor.

Publicity and Knowledge

Table 30, shows what proportions of mothers who had noticed and who had not noticed publicity of the various sorts, knew the correct answers to the questions dealt with in the previous section, “Do you know what causes diphtheria?” “Do you know how diphtheria can be prevented?” “Up to what age should children be immunised?” and “What is the best age to have then immunised?”. The percentages of all mothers giving the correct replies are shown again on the bottom line for comparison. The right hand column shows the numbers on which the percentages are based. (The pairs of numbers do not add exactly to the total 2584, because in a few cases no reply was recorded as to whether publicity had been noticed.)

In all cases those who had come across publicity through the general media, the press, the radio, cinemas, and posters, were better or as well informed as those who had not. It should be remembered in considering these results that somewhat higher proportions of those who are likely to be better informed in general, the higher education and economic groups, than of others read newspapers regularly and possess wireless sets.

It was shown previously that higher proportions of mothers in the lower economic and education groups had received leaflets about immunisation from the school or from the health visitor. A somewhat higher proportion of those who had than of those who had not received such leaflets knew up to what age children should be immunised. In other respects however those who had received leaflets were not better informed than those who had not.

The results are of more interest when these noticing publicity from same media and not others are separated.

In all cases the proportion of those who had seen publicity in newspapers or magazines but had not heard about immunisation on the radio giving the correct answer approximates to the corresponding proportion of the whole sample.

The proportions of those who had heard publicity on the radio but had not read it in the press giving correct answers, are also about average except with respect to the cause. Here the proportion is appreciably lower than average.

Those who had seen posters but had not seen press publicity or heard about immunisation on the radio, show low proportions giving the correct answers except in respect of the method of prevention, where the difference, though in the same direction, is barely significant.

There are two ways in which these results might be interpreted. Either the press and the radio are better media for education than posters, or else the differences are due to the fact that those who read newspapers and have radios are in any case better educated than those who do not. It is clear at any rate that those who had seen statements in the press (whether or not they had also seen posters) were in general better, informed than those who had only seen posters.

Summary

75% of mothers had noticed publicity in newspapers or magazines, 50% on the radio, 40% at the cinema, 87% had seen posters and 53% had received leaflets from school or from the health visitor.

Publicity in the press and on the radio was noticed somewhat more by mothers in the higher education and economic groups than by others. Higher proportions of mothers in the lower education and economic groups had heard about immunisation from the school or from the health visitor.

There are some differences in the frequencies with which different sorts of publicity were noticed in different regions. In London the proportions noticing publicity of most sorts were somewhat higher than elsewhere.

Higher proportions of mothers who had noticed publicity of various sorts than of mothers who had not had had one or more of their children immunised.

Those who had seen posters but had not seen statements in the press or had heard about immunisation on the radio, enot so well informed as those who had noticed press and radio publicity.