1. Tara Seymour SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEALTH BRANDING

3. COMMERCIAL BRANDS

4.  American Legacy Foundations truth campaign  CDC’s VERB: It’s what you do  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxcsKE1SS4Y PUBLIC HEALTH BRANDS

5.  Research of major online databases and consultation with health communication and marketing experts  Only included studies where the sole object of the branding effort was a public health behavior/outcome  A total of 37 articles were included in the review from US, Africa, Australia and Europe METHODS

6.  Topic Area  Brand development  Use of scientific theory  Formative research  Persuasive elements DOMAINS OF INTEREST

7.  Marketing execution  Evidence of social marketing or communications campaign  Marketing channels  Marketing techniques  Oppositional vs. nonoppositional effort DOMAINS OF INTEREST

8.  Evaluation reporting and outcomes reported  Study sample  Research design  Statistics reported  Explicit measures of branding  Objectives/ hypotheses clearly stated  Reported outcomes of the branding effort  Measure of the precision of the estimate DOMAINS OF INTEREST

9. RESULTS: TOPIC AREA

10. RESULTS: BRAND DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING EXECUTION

11. RESULTS: STUDY DESIGN AND OUTCOME REPORTING

12.  Key factors that should be included in a well reported study of public health branding  Range: 0 to 11  Mean value of 7.7, SD= 1.97 QUALITY SCALE

13.  Absence of well recognized key words  Lack of standardization of reporting and measurement  Need for more experimental studies with longitudinal data LIMITATIONS

14.  Public health branding appears to be versatile strategy  public health areas  Marketing channels  Suggested characteristics that are important to public health branding and should be included in future research  Some studies suggested evidence of prevention effects but longitudinal studies across multiple areas are needed to better asses the effectiveness CONCLUSIONS

15. QUESTIONS?