Margaret Brigley, President & COO | Corporate Research Associates
Date: March 28, 2018
POR Registration Number: 063-17
PSPC Contract Number: HT372-174010
Contract Award Date: December 18, 2017
Delivery Date: March 2018
Contracted Cost: $61,045 (taxes excluded)
Focus Testing Creative Concepts for the Childhood Vaccination Advertising Campaign
(HC POR-17-20)
Final Report
Prepared by:
Corporate Research Associates Inc.
Prepared for:
Health Canada
Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.
For more information on this report, please email:
por-rop@hc-sc.gc.ca
Suite 5001, 7071 Bayers Road
Halifax NS B3L 2C2
www.cra.ca
1-888-414-1336
Executive Summary
Background
Detailed Analysis
Information Seeking Behaviours
Creative Concept Testing
Research Methodology
Context of Qualitative Research
Conclusions
Recommendations
Appendices:
Appendix A - Recruitment Screener
Appendix B – Moderator’s Guide
Appendix C – Creative Material
Corporate Research Associates Inc.
Contract Number: HT372-174010
POR Registration Number: 063-17
Contract Award Date: December 18, 2017
Contracted Cost: $61,045 (taxes excluded)
The Public Health Agency of Canada will be launching a childhood vaccination public awareness campaign aimed at promoting the importance, safety, and effectiveness of vaccination, with the overall goal of increasing vaccination rates in Canada. Qualitative research was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of three new creative concepts for the vaccination campaign among the target audiences. The concepts were assessed based on message clarity, credibility, relevance and value to the target audience, appeal and appropriateness, and ability to motivate the audience to take personal action.
A total of eight (8) traditional, in-person focus groups were conducted with vaccine-hesitant pregnant women or those expected to become pregnant in the next year, and with parents of children 0 to 6 years old. Two groups per city were conducted in Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto, and St. John’s from January 11th to 18th, 2018. It should be noted that many of those in the first group were not yet pregnant.
Caution must be exercised when interpreting the results from this study, as qualitative research is directional only. Results cannot be attributed to the overall population under study, with any degree of confidence.
I hereby certify as a Representative of Corporate Research Associates Inc. that the deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Directive on the Management of Communications. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.
Signed
Margaret Brigley, President & COO | Corporate Research Associates
Date: March 28, 2018
Findings of the Focus Testing Creative Concepts for the Childhood Vaccination Advertising Campaign (POR-17-20) Groups suggest that vaccine-hesitant parents and pregnant women or those expecting to be in the next year would welcome a public awareness campaign on childhood vaccination and are open to receiving information on that topic. Interest is greatest in accessing comprehensive and balanced information presented in an objective manner.
Results suggest that of the three creative concepts tested, the ‘Safety’ campaign should be further developed, as it was well received in Montreal and was considered the preferred approach in all English-speaking locations. The concept effectively positions vaccination as another means for parents to protect their children. The approach was seen as credible, realistic, and engaging, which helped grab attention. Though not believed to be informative in itself, the concept left a positive impression with participants as it normalizes vaccination and validates parents’ roles in protecting their children in a variety of ways. The tone of the video is interpreted as heart-warming and reassuring. The video was compelling to both groups, and particularly parents of young children. To broaden the concept’s appeal, consideration should be given to include greater diversity in terms of parents’ gender, family types, and socio-economic environments. In addition, the scene in the doctor’s office should more clearly show vaccination to strengthen the message and create better flow with the tagline.
The ‘Rhymes’ concept elicited mixed reactions. The concept was well received and preferred in Montreal while it was generally deemed problematic in English-speaking locations. The concept’s approach of combining a light-hearted lullaby with the serious topic of vaccine-preventable diseases created an attractive tension and sense of urgency in the French video. On the other hand, the English version was negatively received due primarily to perceived references to bullying by implying that an unvaccinated child named ‘Fran’ was targeted for spreading diseases.
The ‘Rhymes’ scenario introduced vaccination as a socially-responsible choice for protecting all children. Though this was viewed positively by some, others felt that it blamed parents who decide not to have their children vaccinated. Parents of daycare-age children were seen as the target audience, though it was believed that most decisions related to vaccination happen during the first year or two of the child’s life. Of the two taglines presented for this concept, “Don’t play with disease. Keep them safe with vaccines. / On ne joue pas avec la maladie. Protégez vos enfants avec la vaccination.” was preferred and considered less prescriptive.
Reactions to the ‘Kiss’ concept were generally negative across all locations and audiences. The approach was deemed as oversexualized for showing young children kissing on the mouth, and the lack of reference to vaccination in the scenario itself was believed to weaken the message. Indeed, the situation featured did not point exclusively to vaccine-preventable diseases and when combined to the tagline, “It’s no big deal. They’re vaccinated”, could mislead viewers by suggesting that vaccination protects children from becoming sick when kissing other children. The French tagline, “C’est beau. Ils sont mineurs et vaccinés” was more commonly associated with the meaning of the original expression (majeur et vacciné) than with vaccination, specifically that people are responsible enough to make their own choices. In addition, the light-hearted scenario of children playing combined with the tagline while intended to reassure parents, appeared to some as trivializing the decisions related to vaccination. From a creative standpoint, it was mentioned in Montreal that the concept wrongly introduced an element of racism, by suggesting that it was all right that a white girl kiss a black boy because she is vaccinated.
Despite diverse reactions to the concepts tested, all were seen as having a moderate call to action leading to the website, primarily due to a lack of understanding of what information would be available online. Incorporating teaser information about the website content (potentially including facts) may strengthen this call to action. At the same time, to be of value and perceived as a trusted reference on childhood vaccination, the website must provide comprehensive and balanced information that takes into consideration various points of view on the matter. In terms of a website URL, a non-hyphenated, short and simple name is preferred, with the original English version (Canada.ca/ChildhoodVaccines) being preferred. An alternate French URL was suggested and preferred, namely Canada.ca/VaccinsEnfants.
Research findings clearly show that there is value in further developing the ‘Safety’ concept with some modifications, as well as establishing a related website that provides relevant information. The Government would also benefit from positioning itself as a credible and trusted source of such information, by providing access to balanced viewpoints on vaccination, as well as engaging the public to reflect on these choices rather than directing them to do something.
As part of its mandate to increase vaccination rates across the country, the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) will be launching a Childhood Vaccination Advertising Campaign specifically aimed at vaccine-hesitant parents to promote the importance, safety and effectiveness of vaccinations, with the overall goal of increasing vaccination rates in Canada.
Past research has shown that, compared to other affluent countries, Canada performs poorly in terms of its early childhood immunization rates. It is estimated that 85 percent of Canadian children have a full complement of the recommended vaccines. While very few Canadians hold ‘anti-vaccine’ views, the main reason for insufficient vaccination coverage lies among those who are ‘vaccine-hesitant’.
PHAC’s campaign will be directed at ‘vaccine-hesitant’ pregnant women, and parents who delay (or are likely to delay), are reluctant to receive or refuse to accept some or all recommended vaccines for themselves or their children, or express concerns around the side-effects of vaccines. PHAC estimates that while nearly all parents strongly or somewhat agree that childhood vaccines are safe, effective and important for children’s health, approximately two-thirds of Canadian parents express some concerns about their side-effects. Moreover, nearly four-in-ten parents agree that a vaccine can cause the same disease it was meant to prevent, and one-in-seven parents strongly agree that alternative practices (e.g., homeopathy or chiropractors) can eliminate the need for vaccines (source: cNICs 2015 report).
Ultimately, the campaign’s intent is to promote the importance, safety and effectiveness of childhood vaccinations, with the goal of increasing overall vaccination rates in Canada
Within this context, PHAC commissioned qualitative research to assist in testing the effectiveness of new creative concepts for this vaccination campaign. Results of this focus testing will enable PHAC to develop content that resonates with the target audience and enables them to take action. Three creative concepts were tested as part of this research.
More specifically, the research objectives included, to:
This report presents a high level executive summary and description of the detailed methodology used, the detailed findings of the focus group discussions, and a series of recommendations stemming from the research findings. The working documents are appended to the report, including the recruitment screener, the moderator’s guide and the creative material tested.
Prior to reviewing the creative concepts, participants were asked to share their thoughts on childhood vaccination by completing one individual exercise, followed by a group discussion to examine behaviours as it relates to seeking information on this topic. Participants were informed that childhood vaccination refers to routine vaccines like pertussis (whooping cough), measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), as well as those to prevent chicken pox, but does not refer to vaccines to prevent the flu or those administered in advance of travelling.
Perceptions regarding childhood vaccination varies across focus group locations and audiences.
To provide context for the focus group discussions, participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with nine statements about childhood vaccination using a 10-point scale, where 1 means completely disagree and 10 means completely agree. This exercise was conducted individually, in writing. Given the qualitative methodology, the results are intended as directional only. The following provides an overview or reactions to each of the nine statements:
Statement: Childhood vaccines are safe.
Mixed opinions were offered regarding the safety of childhood vaccines. Confidence was generally higher across audiences in Montreal and Vancouver, and among parents in St. John’s. By contrast, Toronto participants and expecting to be/pregnant women in St. John’s were more hesitant to trust the safety of childhood vaccines.
Statement: Childhood vaccines are effective.
Mixed opinions were also offered regarding the effectiveness of childhood vaccines. Again, confidence was highest across audiences in Montreal and Vancouver, and among parents in St. John’s. Toronto participants and expecting to be/pregnant women in St. John’s were again less confident in comparison with respect to the effectiveness of childhood vaccines.
Statement: Childhood vaccines are important to keep children healthy.
Once more, mixed opinions were offered regarding the importance of childhood vaccines. Again, participants across audiences in Montreal and Vancouver, as well as parents in St. John’s were most likely to believe that childhood vaccines are important to keep children healthy. By contrast, participants in Toronto and expecting to be/pregnant women in St. John’s were less likely to support this claim.
Statement: I am concerned about the side effects of childhood vaccines.
Across locations and audiences, there was moderate concern regarding the side effects of childhood vaccines. In general, parents expressed a higher degree of concern than pregnant women or those expecting to be over the next year.
Statement: A vaccine can cause the same disease it is meant to prevent.
Participants across locations and audiences generally did not believe that a vaccine can cause the same disease it is meant to prevent. This opinion was more pronounced among pregnant women or those expecting to be in the next year, than among parents of young children.
Statement: Alternative practices, such as homeopathy or chiropractors, can eliminate the need for vaccines.
Across audiences and locations, participants generally did not believe that alternative practices, such as homeopathy or chiropractors, can eliminate the need for vaccines. This opinion appeared more pronounced among pregnant women or those expecting to be in the next year, than among parents.
Statement: I trust information from the Government of Canada about childhood vaccination.
The level of trust in the Government of Canada information about childhood vaccination was mixed across locations and audiences, though it was moderate overall. Parents in Montreal and St. John’s generally endorsed this information, while pregnant women or those expecting to be expressed more moderate levels of confidence. By contrast, Toronto participants offered the lowest level of trust in information from the Government of Canada about childhood vaccination.
Statement: I already have all of the information I need about childhood vaccination.
For the most part, participants considered themselves to be moderately informed about childhood vaccination, at best. Consistently, pregnant women or those expecting to be in the next year were less likely than parents to believe that they have all of the information they need.
Statement: I am always interested in new information about childhood vaccination.
Participants in Montreal and Vancouver and parents in St. John’s were generally interested in new information about childhood vaccination. By contrast, pregnant women or those expecting to be in St. John’s, and Toronto participants across audiences offered more moderate levels of interest in such information.
Parents generally look for information to guide their choices when their children are at the age to be vaccinated.
In a group discussion, participants were asked about their previous search for information as it relates to childhood vaccination. Pregnant women and those intending to become pregnant were very unlikely to have sought childhood vaccination information already, primarily due to a perceived lack of need at this stage in their pregnancy or planning (many participants were not yet pregnant). They generally anticipate that they will seek information at the time when vaccinations are required, specifically after their child is born.
By contrast, many parents had sought information on childhood vaccines after their child’s birth. Information was gleaned both through informal discussions and through more formal inquiries. Parents who had not sought information indicated that they did not feel a need for it, with a few indicating their own positive experience with vaccination led them to have their children vaccinated despite questioning aspects of it. Indeed, those parents felt that if nothing happened to them and those they know, there would be no reason to believe that childhood vaccination is cause for concern. Other parents felt overwhelmed by the amount of information available and believed that sifting through it could be both cumbersome and confusing.
Among participants who had looked for information on childhood vaccination, a variety of topics were identified as being of interest to them. For the most part, information sought included:
“The basics – what will I need and when? What can I expect in terms of side effects?” St. John’s
“I’m looking for side effects or negatives, to be sure that I need [vaccines].” Vancouver
“Are there side effects? Are there harmful toxins?” Toronto
“Relationships to other diseases such as celiac disease or allergies.” Vancouver
To a lesser extent, the following information was considered of interest:
In many instances, participants indicated seeking information to help them make an informed decision about vaccinating their own children. In some instances, participants indicated hesitancy about vaccination as a result of their own personal questions, conversations or social media from others, or having read news reports. Hesitancy relates to questions of whether childhood vaccination is necessary (e.g. with modern hygiene and medicine, is mumps a thing of the past?), as well as expressing concerns around side effects (including autism in a few instances) and a lack of information around the overall efficacy and prevalence of vaccination within the population.
“Wondering what is considered a need versus what is an option.” Vancouver
“I have concern if there is a need for [vaccines] anymore? Modern hygiene is good… would a disease even be an issue any more?” Vancouver
Many also expressed concern with the amount of information available, the varying points of views that exist, and the perceived lack of sound direction or research on vaccination.
“There’s just SO MUCH information – good and bad. I can’t decide what to believe.” Toronto
Government is among the trusted sources of information about childhood vaccination, although only if information provided appears comprehensive, balanced, and supported.
In terms of seeking or receiving vaccination advice or information, a variety of sources were used by parents; notably doctors, nurses, parent groups, online forums or specialized parental websites, government websites, healthcare provider websites and from friends / family. Among those, doctors, nurses, midwives, and governments are considered the most trustworthy sources. In addition, consistent information from multiple online sources is generally trusted. A few parents mentioned they went to the government websites to validate or refute the information they have seen online (e.g. side effects, autism, etc.).
Some of the specific online sources of information mentioned included Wikipedia, Health Canada, the ‘Healthy Canadians website’ (mentioned in St. John’s), WebMD (mentioned in Toronto), websites for local health authorities, and in Quebec, the website “Naître et Grandir” was mentioned. Parent groups or online forums were also sources of information used and trusted by some. One participant in Montreal also mentioned having seen TED Talks on this topic, though no specific mention was provided.
It should be noted that the soundness of information provided is as important as the source in establishing its trustworthiness. Evidence, or supported claims, is important in assessing whether or not to consider a piece of information or a source.
“I’m looking for both sides – evidence! Consistency, credentials, who’s saying it.” Vancouver
Three concepts for a video advertisement were tested, identified in this report as ‘Safety’, ‘Rhymes’, and ‘Kiss’ concepts. Each concept included an animatic video for testing purposes. In each location, the order of concept presentation was rotated to prevent order bias. After being shown each concept, participants were asked to individually share their personal reactions to the idea using a series of individual exercises. Subsequently, each concept was discussed as a group, prior to each participant being presented the next concept. The following provides a detailed account of general reactions across concepts, followed by an individual analysis of findings for each of the three concepts.
There is perceived value in a public awareness campaign on vaccination, but the call to action is weak across all three concepts tested.
Across the three creative concepts, a number of general considerations warrant mention. Most notably, participants generally felt that it is important for the Government to be communicating about childhood vaccination, especially given the discussions and debates seen on social media about the topic and the desire to see an objective consolidation of information. As such, the idea of a vaccination advertising campaign from Government was well received.
It should be noted that parents who have delayed or refused vaccines for their children, as well as those considering to do so, do not want to be judged or perceived as having made an irrational decision. These findings suggest that online information from the Government should address individuals with respect, and that information be provided in a non-judgmental, objective format that includes various options. At the same time, messaging should invite them to consider the benefits of vaccination, rather than telling them what they need to do or what the ‘right’ choice might be.
From a creative standpoint, reactions to the call to action in all three concepts varied Montreal participants indicated that all concepts tested had a moderate call to action (namely going online), while many participants in other cities said they would not go online as they do not feel they need additional information. Indeed, none of the concepts provided a strong enough reason to visit the website.
“Pourquoi? On ne dit pas pourquoi on devrait en apprendre plus.” (Why? They are not saying why we should find out more.) (Referring to the Safety concept) Montreal
In other cities there was a stronger curiosity related to what might be available on the website, with the call to action being strongest in St. John’s.
In Vancouver and Toronto, the campaign’s call to action was felt to be somewhat weak without any clear indication of what type of information would be available. Many suggested having a ‘teaser’ in the video of the types of facts or myth-busting information that would be available online.
“I do want to learn more, but why? What are you getting there? [at the website]” Vancouver (Referring to the Safety concept)
“They need to tell you there’s information out there on their website.” Vancouver (Referring to the Rhymes concept)
In Vancouver, four statements presenting short factual information about childhood vaccination were tested to understand participants’ reactions to the type of information that could be available on the website or as part of the advertising campaign. These statements were well received, most notably the two facts about measles, which were felt to be surprising and informative, and precisely the type of information that participants would find of interest.
The following sections provide a more detailed account of reactions for each of the three concepts tested.
The Safety concept was generally considered most effective at informing parents of the role of childhood vaccination.
Overall Reactions: Overall, the ‘Safety’ concept received the most positive reactions of the three concepts, though slightly less in Montreal. In general, it was considered the best of all three at informing parents of the role of vaccination. It was well received in Vancouver, Toronto, and St. John’s as being emotionally engaging, realistic and relatable. Reactions were also positive in Montreal, though in this location, the concept was deemed less impactful and may not grab viewers’ attention to the same extent as in other locations. Of all three concepts tested, the Safety concept was generally considered most effective at informing parents the role of childhood vaccination. Overall, it was generally considered believable. In particular, parents moderately believed that the concept made them more confident about vaccinating their children, while pregnant women or those expecting to be in the next year were less likely to agree that the concept would make them confident about vaccinating their children.
For the most part, the ‘Safety’ concept was well received in Vancouver, Toronto, and St. John’s as being emotionally engaging, realistic and relatable. Reactions were also positive in Montreal, though the concept was deemed less impactful and may not grab viewers’ attention. Overall, this concept was deemed most effective at normalizing childhood vaccination as part of the toolkit parents have to protect their children, and acknowledging parents’ role and responsibility towards vaccinating their children.
“It’s more positive. You do EVERYTHING you can to protect your kids, and it shows that.” Vancouver
“Vaccinations are another form of protection.” Toronto
“It acknowledges the parent’s role. No misinformation. It’s normal to do all those things.” Vancouver
Message: The message was considered to be that childhood vaccination is simply another way that parents can keep their children safe. The inclusion of everyday parental behaviours (helping a child put a helmet on or crossing the street) helped normalize vaccination as an additional tool parents have to protect their children.
“It says that vaccines are another tool to look at to protect your kids.” Vancouver
“Ils essaient de banaliser la vaccination pour que les gens se posent moins de questions.” (They are trying to downplay vaccination so people ask themselves fewer questions about it.) Montreal
“Les vaccins font partie des choses qui aident les enfants à devenir adultes.” (Vaccines are part of things that help children become adults.) Montreal
In a few instances in Montreal, pregnant women and those expecting to become pregnant felt that this creative approach suggested that the Government was encouraging the public not to ask questions about vaccination and to simply take it at face value. Indeed, presenting vaccination in the context of other behaviours that are almost second-nature to parents suggested that vaccinating children should be treated or considered much the same way. However, it did pique curiosity for some, who wanted to seek more information after seeing the ad.
“It’s good, I need more information about vaccination.” St. John’s
“It’s biased – too promotional of vaccines. Would the website actually tell me the cons as well?” Toronto
That being said, the concept also implied to some in Montreal, Toronto and St. John’s that parents who chose not to vaccinate their children or who do not recognize themselves in the other scenarios are irresponsible.
“Ça suggère que si tu ne fais pas ça [différentes interactions avec l’enfant], tu n’es pas un bon parent.” (It suggests that if you do act that way with your child, then you are not a good parent.) Montreal
“It’s saying that parents who aren’t comfortable are neglectful to not vaccinate.” St. John’s
“A responsible parent would do all of the above. If you don’t vaccinate, you’re not responsible. I feel on the fence about that because I don’t know how safe they are. I should learn more.” Toronto
Nonetheless, for the most part, parents across locations liked the fact that the campaign validates the work they do to protect their children, and the positive message of vaccines being an additional tool to help protect children.
“It says that vaccines are like a third parent.” Vancouver
“Si tu protèges ton enfant en tout temps, et bien, fais-le vacciner; ça va le protéger.” (If you always protect your child, have them vaccinated to protect them.) Montreal
“Ils disent que c’est le rôle des parents de protéger les enfants et on va faire la même chose avec les vaccins.” (They say it is parents’ role to protect their children, and they will do the same with vaccines.) Montreal
Tone: Across locations, the video left a positive or neutral impression across audiences. The concept was generally seen as credible, largely due to the realistic scenarios it includes. The tone and song were emotive, heart-warming, and positive which resonated with many. To some, the concept brought up their parental instincts. The tone was also described as encouraging and reassuring by some in Montreal.
“The music makes it emotional. Keep your kids safe and alive. It’s heartwarming.” Vancouver
“[I] feel reassured. It’s professional. Gives me a bit of confidence.” Vancouver
“Ça vient chercher notre fibre maternelle et c’est encourageant.” (It brings up our maternal instinct and it is encouraging.) Montreal
“It’s gentler. Our job is to protect our kids. We have to do our job.” Toronto
“It pulls on your heartstrings.” St. John’s
For just a few participants in Montreal who did not recognize themselves in the scenarios featured, it felt paternalistic to be told by government what behaviours parents should have with their children.
Relevance: It was believed that this concept primarily targets parents of young children. Indeed, most parents felt compelled by what the concept was saying and recognized themselves in situations shown, while pregnant women and those expecting a pregnancy in the next year felt less engaged, even if one of the women shown in the video would be pregnant (this may be affected by the fact that many of the women were not currently pregnant). This primarily stems from the fact that they are less concerned with childhood vaccination before a child’s birth. Perhaps as a result, parents were more likely to rate the concept as being memorable than women who do not have children.
Creative Concept: A few participants, notably in Montreal and Vancouver, felt that the scenarios were too ‘square’ and that more alternative lifestyles should be presented to cast a wider appeal. Across locations, many suggested the inclusion of gender diversity as the ad was perceived to be too female / mother-focussed. (It should be noted that despite the concept including a male walking across the street, it was not generally recognized as including a male figure – this may be potentially due to the fact that only the legs of the individual were shown). It was also mentioned that the families portrayed should show all walks of life, with families that are obviously from various socio-economic profiles.
“It could have the same message if men were in it. I’m really irritated by it being only women.” Toronto
“Add a father figure! It’s all moms and no dads!” St. John’s
At the same time, the visual in the doctor’s office was not evidently linked to vaccination for some, and thus it was suggested to make it clear in the scenario that the doctor is administering a vaccine to the child. This would more strongly support the campaign’s message in addition to creating a better flow with the message communicated by the tagline which follows the scene.
“What is the band aid? Is the kid getting a vaccine?” Vancouver
Tagline: The tagline, “You protect them every day. So do vaccines / Vous les protégez tous les jours. Les vaccins aussi” was felt to be straightforward and clear, though some in St. John’s felt that asking a question about whether a parent has all the facts they need might be more enticing to visit the website.
While the ‘Rhymes’ concept effectively grabbed attention in Montreal, it elicited strongly negative reactions in other locations.
Overall Reactions: With the exception of Montreal, where the concept was seen as the most impactful and attention-grabbing, strong negative reactions were commonly seen in all English-speaking locations. Notably in Vancouver and Toronto, the concept was believed to promote bullying of a child named ‘Fran’, for being sick and not being vaccinated. For the most part, the concept was deemed as moderately attention-grabbing and memorable. The concept was generally not seen as credible in English-speaking locations.
“Who is Fran? If she’s a sick girl and they are making fun of her, that is not ok.” Vancouver
“It’s shaming the kid who is sick.” Toronto
“It’s saying kids may make fun of someone else because they’re sick. Make them outcast. It’s bullying.” Toronto
“It’s not nice to laugh about a sick kid.” Toronto
Reactions in Montreal were vastly different likely because the French lyrics did not identify a child by name. As such, the concept did not give an impression of bullying. Rather, the song attracted attention of participants and the contrast between the lightness of a children’s rhyme and the seriousness of the topic of vaccination created sufficient tension to grab the viewers’ attention. As such all audiences in Montreal generally considered the concept attention-grabbing and to some extent, memorable. For the most part, the concept is seen as moderately believable.
Across all locations, the concept was generally not seen as making participants more confident about vaccinating their own children and it did not contribute to making them more or less comfortable with childhood vaccination. The concept was also perceived as being ineffective at encouraging viewers to find out more about childhood vaccination.
Message: The concept’s message was considered to be asking parents to consider vaccination to protect their own children, but also to protect others. As such, it introduced a notion of social responsibility which was appreciated by some, but criticized by others who felt that it accuses parents who do not have their children vaccinated of putting other children’s health at risk. At the same time, the concept was viewed as presenting vaccination as a means of protecting children from infecting each other.
“Message is that kids can infect each other. It feels like a threat.”
“Ça parle des répercussions sociales de ne pas se faire vacciner. Ça introduit une question de responsabilité sociale.” (It speaks of social repercussion of not being vaccinated. It introduces an aspect of social responsibility.) Montreal
“Ça insinue qu’un parent qui ne vaccine pas son enfant joue avec la santé de tous les enfants de la garderie.” (It suggests that a parent that doesn’t vaccinate their children puts the health of other daycare children at risk.) Montreal
“If my child plays with another they’ll get a disease. It makes you paranoid as a parent.” Toronto
The creative approach was also considered as a reminder of the daily risks faced by children who are not vaccinated.
“C’est un rappel aux parents des endroits où les enfants peuvent attraper des infections. Ça met l’accent sur les risques d’infection.” (It reminds parents of the places where children can get infections. It focuses on the risks of infection.) Montreal
“I really like the message to not play with disease.” St. John’s
Tone: The innocence of the song and game played by children in this concept combined with the seriousness of the topic of vaccine-preventable diseases created tension that elicited a range of reactions. In Montreal, this approach effectively grabbed attention and created a sense of urgency among parents. In English-speaking locations many participants laughed out loud during viewing of the ad.
“Ça créer un sentiment d’urgence. On ne joue pas avec la maladie. C’est sérieux.” (It creates a sense of urgency; we don’t play with diseases. It’s serious.) Montreal
“It’s offensive for something so serious, but it also made me laugh. It’s so far-fetched that I would remember it.” Toronto
In other locations, however, parents mainly felt unsettled and ‘creeped out’ by this approach. This sentiment was compounded by the concept appearing to promote bullying.
“It’s a nursery rhyme, a chilling association with the black plague.” Vancouver
“It’s offensive – bullying a child who is sick.” Vancouver
“It’s accusatory, it talks down to you. As a parent it makes you feel defensive.” Vancouver
Some parents, notably in St. John’s, felt unsettled watching the ad, finding the ‘itchy rash’ to be gross and a good reminder to think about vaccination.
“It’s gross – makes you want to get vaccinated to avoid an itchy rash.” St. John’s
Relevance: It was believed that the concept spoke to parents of children who are old enough to attend daycare. Indeed, in all locations, the concept was less compelling to pregnant women, those expecting to become pregnant in the near future, and parents of infants and school-age children who attended the groups. In general though, it should be noted that the concept lacked personal relevance primarily due to the creative approach and the song. A number of participants felt that the concept excluded children who attend daycare in private home settings, as it clearly featured an institutionalize daycare. Some felt that the ad was aimed at children, and they did not feel that it would be appropriate for that audience.
“C’est pour les parents qui ont des enfants à la garderie.” (It is for parents who have children in daycare.) Montreal
At the same time, many in Montreal and in Vancouver mentioned that childhood vaccination primarily happens during a child’s first year, and thus parents of daycare-age children would have already considered these kinds of decisions. Because of this situation, it was felt that the concept targeted the wrong audience.
Creative Concept: The French nursery rhyme was well known and recognized by parents who fondly recalled their children singing it. It was also the creative element that was most effective at grabbing and keeping the viewers’ attention.
In English-speaking groups, the identification of a child spreading the infection was negatively considered as supporting bullying behaviours. In addition, questions were raised across locations with the types of symptoms identified in the concept. Indeed, rashes, coughing and sneezing were not generally equated with the diseases that can be vaccinated against, but rather, felt to be more relevant to passing on a cold or the flu or skin conditions such as eczema.
“It conflates a rash with things that are contagious and can be vaccinated against.” Vancouver
“Those are really common symptoms. It’s inappropriate to laugh at a kid who is sick or who as eczema.” Toronto
“The symptoms are not serious – you get over it. It sounds like a common cold.” St. John’s
“Rashes and fevers are not necessarily diseases you can vaccinate against!” Vancouver
It should be noted that in Montreal, a few parents believed that institutionalized daycare, as the one shown in the video, required all children attending to have their vaccination schedule up to date. As such, the setting in the video appeared somewhat unrealistic.
Tagline: Reactions to the tagline “Don’t play with disease. Vaccinate your children. / Ne jouez pas avec la maladie. Faites vacciner vos enfants” were mixed. For the most part, however, it was seen as clear, direct, and attention-grabbing. In St. John’s, the play on word (“Don’t play with disease”) was appreciated by some as a catchy way to reveal the seriousness of diseases and vaccination. A few parents in several locations felt offended to be told to vaccinate their children rather than being invited to consider vaccination.
“C’est sérieux et trop directif.” (It’s serious and too directive.) Montreal
Reactions were generally more positive towards the alternate tagline, “Don’t play with disease. Keep them safe with vaccines. / On ne joue pas avec la maladie. Protégez vos enfants avec la vaccination”. In fact, it was preferred in Montreal. It was considered less threatening than the original version and less of a command. The association with the idea of safety was also appreciated. That being said, some felt it was not forceful enough to engage parents in considering vaccination.
“C’est moins autoritaire; moins imposant.” (It is less authoritative, less impressive.) Montreal
“[The word safe] is a better word – plays with your parental instinct.” St. John’s
“It’s nicer, more gentle. It’s advice instead of telling you what to do.” Toronto
A few parents in Montreal suggested to reverse the order of the tagline, by saying “Faites vacciner vos enfants” before “Ne jouez pas avec la maladie” to increase the statement’s impact.
The Kiss concept elicited strong negative reactions for portraying children kissing, as well as causing some message confusion.
Overall Reactions: This concept elicited strong negative reactions across locations due to its perceived inappropriateness of showing children kissing on the mouth. In many locations, parents reacted with nervous laughter, raised eyebrows and head shaking while seeing the video for the first time. As such, the concept generally lacked credibility for participants. It was also unlikely to make participants confident about vaccinating their own children and to make them more comfortable with childhood vaccination. On the contrary, a good number of participants across groups considered that the concept made them less comfortable about childhood vaccination.
“It’s funny and shocking because of the passionate kiss for a child – it’s the arm on the shoulder and closed eyes.” Vancouver
“It’s weird to show them kissing. It’s too intimate. Makes it a joke. I wouldn’t want to watch it.” St. John’s
“It grabs my attention in a negative way.” Vancouver
That said, a few participants found the ad to be a sweet portrayal of childhood innocence.
“It’s really cute. Kids do those sorts of things.” St. John’s
“Let kids be kids.” St. John’s
A number of parents in all locations indicated that they teach their children that kissing another child on the mouth is an inappropriate behaviour. Participants also mentioned trying to teach pre-school children to respect other people’s intimacy or stay out of their ‘bubble’ was common among parents and that this concept promoted the opposite of what parents teach their children. Several parents across locations suggested using sharing food or toys as an alternative to generate the same message, but to avoid the issues of intimacy.
“The child and play setting makes it more disturbing. Non-consensual kissing. I don’t want to normalize kissing on the lips between friends.” Vancouver
“Change it to sharing food, that would be better.” Toronto
Apart from being perceived as overly sexualized, the concept was also seen as overly casual about vaccination (suggesting that ‘it isn’t a big deal’).
“It says it’s ok to swap bodily fluids if you’re vaccinated. Feels sexual. I’m not pleased.” Vancouver
“But it IS a big deal – I don’t want kids kissing – there are so many other things they can pick up. It’s not ok.” St. John’s
“The wording is wrong – that it’s no big deal. But it is!” Vancouver
“But it IS a big deal! You could get a cold sore, or hand, foot and mouth disease – or a cold! It’s a lie.” Vancouver
Only a few felt that the light-hearted approach was an attempt to grab attention and reassure parents that if their children were vaccinated it was one less thing to worry about.
Message: While the ad grabbed the attention of a few participants, the message was considered unclear. The concept also evoked considerable confusion. Participants wondered what diseases were considered in the ad, given that many believed a lot of diseases can be transmitted through kissing, even if a child is vaccinated. For this reason, some felt the ad was deliberately misleading. In addition, the weak link between the visuals and childhood vaccination contributed to message confusion.
“Ça suggère que s’ils sont vaccines, ils peuvent échanger des baisers.” (It suggests that if they are vaccinated, they can kiss each other.) Montreal
French-speaking participants also noted that the concept’s message was weakened by the lack of clear reference to vaccination with the exception of the tagline itself which was only briefly shown at the end of the video.
“C’est quoi le lien entre la vaccination et le baiser?” (What is the link between vaccination and the kiss?) Montreal
Tone: The tone of the video was described as light-hearted and positive by some, and strange or weird by others. The kissing scene appeared to be most disturbing, while the other playful scenes between the children generally elicited positive reactions. The discomfort felt was also compounded by the fact that it is unclear in the creative if the children know each other or if they have just met at the playground.
“It makes me uncomfortable. It’s weird nowadays, and the boy wasn’t into it. Makes me think of consent issues.” Toronto
Relevance: Parents were considered to be the target audience, although the concept itself was not seen as compelling or engaging participants. Pregnant women or those expecting to become pregnant in the next year generally felt that this concept did not speak to them personally.
“It makes me feel overwhelmed – worried about all the things a child could get.” Toronto
Creative Concept: Apart from feeling uncomfortable about children kissing on the mouth, a few parents in Montreal, mentioned that the scenario denoted some level of racism, whereby it implied that a white child could kiss a black child safely if they were vaccinated. While this was not seen as an intentional creative approach, it made some parents feel uncomfortable.
It was also mentioned in Montreal by a few pregnant women or those expecting to become pregnant that having no narration lessened the video’s impact.
Tagline: The English tagline, “It’s no big deal. They’re vaccinated” was confusing. Participants felt that many diseases could be passed between children even if they were vaccinated (e.g. hand foot and mouth disease or herpes), and that therefore the tagline was not true (i.e. that it is a big deal if kids kiss). Further, many felt that the tagline undermined the seriousness of vaccination and sexualized children in a way that was not appropriate.
“There are so many diseases – hand foot and mouth – there are so many things to worry about that you can’t vaccinate against.” Toronto
By contrast, the French tagline, “C’est beau. Ils sont mineurs et vaccinés” was considered the only reference to vaccination in the entire video, but it was more commonly associated with the meaning of the original saying (“Majeur et vacciné” meaning they are old enough to decide to kiss each other) than with the need for vaccination. At the same time, the expression “C’est beau” implies that everything is all right, thus suggesting that the two children kissing is acceptable. As such, the concept’s tagline caused message confusion and was generally disliked.
“L’expression ‘mineurs et vaccinés’ n’a pas de lien avec la vaccination. Ça parle de responsabilité pas de vaccination.” (The expression has nothing to do with vaccination. It speaks of responsibility, not vaccination.) Montreal
There is an expectation that the website will provide comprehensive and balanced information about childhood vaccination. A short and simple URL is preferred.
Following the discussion on creative concepts, participants were asked about the website identified in each of the three concepts, namely Canada.ca/ChildhoodVaccines (Canada.ca/VaccinsEnfance). To begin, they were asked to identify what they would expect to find on the website. A wide variety of information was expected, including:
There was an expectation by a few participants for balanced information that presents both the positive and negative factual information about vaccination, ideally supported by research. For example, participants noted a desire to see potential side effects as well as benefits of vaccination. Another suggestion was to include questions that address the stage that individuals may be at and include appropriate information as necessary (e.g. “Uncertain about vaccinating your children? Click here.”)
Participants were shown various URL for the website and asked which they preferred. The following URLs were briefly discussed:
English Groups:
|
French Groups:
|
Generally, English-speaking participants did not like the alternative URLs shown, which included dashes/hyphens. The use of ‘childhood’ was preferred over ‘kids’, which was felt to be too colloquial for a serious topic.
French-speaking participants also disliked the use of hyphens and preferred a shorter URL. While a variety of preferences were expressed among the three French alternatives, many suggested the use of the name Canada.ca/VaccinsEnfant instead of Vaccination-Enfants.
Two audiences were included in the research, namely:
Vaccine-hesitant adults included those who will or have accept(ed) all recommended vaccines but have doubts and concerns; those who (will or have) refuse(d) or delay(ed) getting some vaccines; and those who have not decided yet about plans for vaccinating their children.
A total of eight (8) traditional focus groups were conducted, namely two French groups in Montreal, QC (January 11, 2018), and two English groups in each of Vancouver, BC (January 15, 2018); Toronto, ON (January 17, 2018); and St. John’s, NL (January 18, 2018). In each location, one group was conducted with each of the two audiences. Each group included a mix of ages, as well as education level and household income where possible. In addition, where possible, a mix of cultural background was achieved, including the inclusion of new Canadians. Parents groups included a mix of gender. In each group, a total of 12 individuals were recruited, with each participant having received $100 in appreciation for their time. Each group discussion lasted approximately two hours.
Individuals who are themselves or have someone in their household currently or have ever been employed in sensitive occupations were excluded from the research. Sensitive occupations included marketing/marketing research, public relations, advertising, media, public health or medical sector, pharmaceutical industry, and associations or organizations connected in any way to vaccines or vaccination. In addition, employees of the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada were excluded from participation.
Qualitative discussions are intended as moderator-directed, informal, non-threatening discussions with participants whose characteristics, habits and attitudes are considered relevant to the topic of discussion. The primary benefits of group qualitative discussions are that they allow for in-depth probing with qualifying participants on behavioural habits, usage patterns, perceptions and attitudes related to the subject matter. Qualitative techniques are used in marketing research as a means of developing insight and direction, rather than collecting quantitatively precise data or absolute measures. As such, results are directional only and cannot be projected to the overall population under study.
The following conclusions are derived from the analysis of the focus group discussions.
Perceptions regarding childhood vaccination varies across focus group locations and audiences.
Reactions to a series of nine statements about childhood vaccination were varied across locations and audiences. Most notably, Montreal and Vancouver parents and pregnant women or those expecting to be in the next year and St. John’s parents were generally more confident in the safety, effectiveness, and health benefits of childhood vaccination than Toronto participants and expecting to be/pregnant women in St. John’s.
Across locations concern about the side effects of childhood vaccine was moderate, though parents expressed greater concern than expecting to be/pregnant women. Participants generally did not believe that vaccines can cause the same disease it is meant to prevent. Likewise, alternative practices are generally not seen as options to eliminate the need for vaccines.
In terms of information, participants considered they were moderately informed about childhood vaccination at best. Pregnant women or those expecting to be in the near future considered themselves less informed than parents. Finally, the level of trust in the Government as a source of childhood vaccine information is mixed across locations and audiences, though moderate overall.
Parents generally look for information to guide their choices when their children are at the age of being vaccinated.
Interest in information about childhood vaccination generally begins after the child is born. Indeed, pregnant women or those expecting to be in the next year have not looked for this information as they believe it has little relevance to them at this time. The topic is most top-of-mind for parents when they are faced with the decision to vaccinate their child. While some parents did not feel the need to obtain information or felt confident based on their own experience with vaccination, many parents looked for information to guide their decision to vaccinate their child.
Government is among the trusted sources of information about childhood vaccination, although only if information provided appears comprehensive, balanced, and supported.
While doctors, nurses, midwives and governments are considered the most trustworthy sources of information on childhood vaccination, a variety of other sources are also used. As much as parents are looking for formal sources of information, informal discussions with other parents are also widely used for information. As might be expected, the Internet is an important source of information. Evidence or concurrence of multiple opinions are as important to parents in establishing the trustworthiness of the information, as is the source itself.
There is perceived value in a public awareness campaign on vaccination, but the call to action is weak across all three concepts tested.
Given the discussions and debates in the public sphere on childhood vaccinations, there is a perceived need for the government to address the topic, encourage the public to look for information, and position itself as a valued source of information on the topic. As such, the idea of a public awareness campaign on childhood vaccination was well received. That being said, given the polarized viewpoints in society on vaccination, it was felt that the Government should provide non-judgemental and balanced information that provides parents with various options regarding childhood vaccination. The campaign’s message should invite the public to consider vaccination rather than telling them to do it.
The campaigns tested were seen as having a moderate call to action, as the three concepts did not include sufficient reasons to visit the website, especially for those who believe that they do not need additional information on vaccination at this time. Incorporating teaser suggestions of what facts might be available online in the video was suggested to elicit interest, with the facts about measles tested during some of the focus groups eliciting the greatest level of interest.
The “Safety” concept was generally considered most effective at informing parents of the role of childhood vaccination.
Of all three concepts tested, the ‘Safety’ concept was considered most informative on the role of vaccination, most credible, and attention-grabbing of parents. That said, the concept did not make participants feel more comfortable about vaccination, though it did not make them feel less comfortable either. In English locations, the creative approach was seen as emotionally engaging, realistic and relatable, while it was seen as less impactful than the ‘Rhymes’ concepts in Montreal. The concept elicited heart-warming feelings, was reassuring, encouraging, and it brought up parental instincts to some.
This concept generally normalized vaccination and presented vaccination as another means parents have to protect their children. While it also validates the work parents do in protecting their children, it implied to some extent that parents who decide not to have their children vaccinated are irresponsible. The scenario, however, was most compelling to parents, even if the concept included a pregnant woman. That said, inclusion of gender diversity and a variety of socio-economic profiles were recommended to broaden the appeal. From a creative standpoint, the scene in the doctor’s office should more obviously show vaccination to strengthen the message and create flow between the visuals and the tagline. The tagline, “You protect them every day. So do vaccines / Vous les protégez tous les jours. Les vaccins aussi” was well received and deemed relevant.
While the French ‘Rhymes’ concept effectively grabbed attention, the English version elicited strong negative reactions.
The combination of a well-known lullaby and the seriousness of the topic of vaccine-preventable diseases created enough tension to grab viewers’ attention in Montreal and created a sense of urgency to consider vaccination. By contrast, the English concept elicited strong negative reactions in all other locations. The English song was believed to promote bullying of a child named ‘Fran’ for being sick and not vaccinated. This approach left those parents feeling unsettled. The concept’s message was seen as asking parents to have their children vaccinated, as a means to protect them from vaccine-preventable diseases, but also to protect other children they may be in contact with. As such, it introduced a concept of social responsibility that was appreciated by some, but criticized by those who felt blamed or accused for their choices. Across locations, questions were raised with the types of symptoms identified in the video, which could apply to a range of diseases, including a cold or the flu.
The concept was deemed as targeting parents of daycare-age children, though it was mentioned that by that age, most childhood vaccines were already administered. It was also believed that the concept spoke more readily to parents whose children are in institutionalized or registered daycare rather than home-based services.
Of the two taglines presented, “Don’t play with disease. Keep them safe with vaccines. / On ne joue pas avec la maladie. Protégez vos enfants avec la vaccination” was preferred and considered less directive or threathening than the tagline, “Don’t play with disease. Vaccinate your children. / Ne jouez pas avec la maladie. Faites vacciner vos enfants”. Some felt, however, that it was not strong enough to engage parents in considering vaccination.
The ‘Kiss’ concept elicited strong negative reactions for portraying children kissing, as well as causing some message confusion.
This concept elicited strong negative reactions across locations due to the inappropriate portrayal of children kissing on the mouth, and going against parents’ teaching to pre-schoolers to respect other people’s privacy. In addition to being perceived as overly sexualized, the concept was seen as too casual about vaccination, suggesting that ‘it isn’t a big deal’. While some felt that this approach was intended to reassure parents about vaccination in a fun, light-hearted manner, it was most likely to make participants feel unsettled. It should be noted that in both groups in Montreal, participants felt that the concept wrongly introduced an element of racism, whereby it suggested that the white girl was able to kiss the black boy without any risk because she was vaccinated.
The concept also caused some message confusion. The situation featured did not point exclusively to vaccine-preventable diseases, and the lack of reference to vaccination in the scenario and visuals contributed to message confusion. While the tagline, “It’s no big deal. They’re vaccinated” introduced the concept of vaccination, it mislead viewers by suggesting that vaccinated children who are embracing did not run the risk of becoming sick. It was also felt that the tagline undermined the seriousness of vaccination. The French tagline, “C’est beau. Ils sont mineurs et vaccinés” was most commonly associated with the meaning of the original expression than with vaccination, specifically in this case that children are old enough to decide to kiss each other.
There is an expectation that the website will provide comprehensive and balanced information about childhood vaccination. A short and simple URL is preferred.
A wide variety of information is expected on the website promoted in the video, most notably related to informing the public generally about vaccination and its risks (possible side effects and risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases). More practical information or guidelines are also of interest, especially when and where to get vaccinations, a list of vaccines, how to address side effects, alternatives to vaccination, and parents’ rights and responsibilities. Finally, broad information about vaccination was suggested, notably best practices in other countries, myth busting of common beliefs, links to peer-reviewed information or study on the efficacy of vaccination, and various statistics on the prevalence of vaccination, vaccine-preventable diseases, and the risk of getting sick even if vaccinated. For the most part, participants expect comprehensive, balanced, and objective information. Tools such as calculators or Q&A sections were also suggested.
The URL deemed most effective and attractive is one that would be short and exclude hyphenation, as well as one that would include the word ‘childhood’ in English, or ‘Enfant’ in French. French-speaking participants suggested the use of ‘Canada.ca/VaccinsEnfants’ as the URL.
The following recommendations are based on the study findings and are presented for Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada’s consideration.
The research shows that there is perceived value for a public awareness campaign from government on childhood vaccination. Given some of the strong negative reactions and message confusion associated with the ‘Rhymes’ and ‘Kiss’ concepts, the research suggests that the ‘Safety’ campaign should be developed with the following modifications:
Consideration should be given to incorporate a URL that does not include hyphenation, and that remains short and meaningful. In addition, the use of the word ‘childhood’ in the English name is recommended to make the URL look more official and align with the perceived seriousness of the topic of vaccination. For those same reasons, consideration should be given to use the French URL “VaccinsEnfants”.
To further build on the trustworthiness of the Government as a source of information on childhood vaccination, consideration should be given to developing a website that provides comprehensive and balanced information presented in an objective manner. This entails providing both sides of the arguments about childhood vaccination, with supporting facts and considerations for parents. To act as a central source of information on the topic, consideration should also be given to include relevant links to other sources of information on the topic. Tools, including one that determines what vaccine is required at what age, as well providing website users with the ability to share information, participate in discussions, or ask questions should also be considered to render the site interactive.
The content and the tone of the website should also be respectful of different points of views on vaccination, as well as provide links to external resources and relevant research. Where possible, it is recommended that information be presented in a factual manner, without any directive or judgemental statements.
Creative Concepts for Vaccination Advertising Screener – FINAL
Name:_______________________________________________________________________
Tel. (H):___________________________ Alt Tel.:_____________________________
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FOCUS GROUPS:
Montreal, QC (FRENCH) |
|||
Date: |
Thursday January 11, 2018 |
Location: |
CRC Montreal |
Time: |
Group 1 – 6:00 pm – Vaccine-hesitant pregnant women |
1610 Ste-Catherine St W |
|
Vancouver, BC (ENGLISH) |
|||
Date: |
Monday January 15, 2018 |
Location: |
CRC Vancouver |
Time: |
Group 3 – 6:00 pm – Vaccine-hesitant pregnant women |
1398 W 7th Avenue |
|
Toronto, ON (ENGLISH) |
|||
Date: |
Wednesday January 17, 2018 |
Location: |
CRC Toronto |
Time: |
Group 5 – 6:00 pm – Vaccine-hesitant pregnant women |
1867 Yonge Street – Suite 200 |
|
St. John’s, NL (ENGLISH) |
|||
Date: |
Thursday January 18, 2018 |
Location: |
MQO Research |
Time: |
Group 7 – 6:00 pm – Vaccine-hesitant pregnant women |
55 Duckworth Street |
|
Specification Summary |
|
|
|
Hello/Bonjour, my name is____ and I am with Corporate Research Associates, a market research company. We are conducting a study on behalf of the Government of Canada, specifically for the Public Health Agency of Canada, and we are looking for people to take part in a small group discussion. We would like to speak with someone in your household who is at least 20 years old. Would that be you? IF NO, ASK TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE ELSE AND REPEAT INTRO
The purpose of the study and the small group discussions is to hear people’s views on some advertisements. Those who qualify and participate in the group discussion will receive $100 in appreciation for their effort.
May I ask you a few quick questions to see if you are the type of participant we are looking for to take part in this small group discussion? This will take about 6 or 7 minutes. The information you provide will remain completely confidential and you are free to opt out at any time. Thank you.
THANK & TERMINATE WHERE REQUIRED IN THE SCREENER: Unfortunately, we will not be able to include you in this study. We already have enough participants who have a similar profile to yours. Thank you for your time today.
VOLUNTEERED
Prefer not to answer........................................................... 4 CONSIDER ONLY FOR GROUPS 2, 4, 6, 8
RECRUIT 9 FEMALES AND 3 MALES FOR PARENT GROUPS 2, 4, 6, 8
RECRUIT FEMALES FOR PREGNANT GROUPS 1, 3, 5, 7
IF YES TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, THANK AND TERMINATE
Yes.................................................................. 1 CONSIDER FOR GROUP 2, 4, 6, 8
No................................................................... 2 SKIP TO Q6
You alone......................................................... 1 CONSIDER FOR GROUP 2, 4, 6, 8
You and someone else; or................................. 2 CONSIDER FOR GROUP 2, 4, 6, 8
Someone else ................................................... 3
VOLUNTEERED
Other (Please specify:___)............................... 4
[RECORD] _______________
Yes.................................................................. 1 CONSIDER FOR GROUPS 1, 3, 5, 7
No................................................................... 2 ASK Q4a
6a. [ASK WOMEN ONLY AND IF NO AT Q6] Are you expecting to become pregnant within the next year?
Yes.................................................................. 1 CONSIDER FOR GROUPS 1, 3, 5, 7
No................................................................... 2
I (will) accept all recommended vaccines and have no doubts or concerns........ 1 THANK AND TERMINATE
I (will) accept all recommended vaccines but have doubts and concerns........... 2 Consider
I (will or have) refuse(d) or delay(ed) getting some vaccines............................. 3 Consider
I have not decided yet about plans for vaccinating my child............................. 4 Consider
I will or have refuse(d) all recommended vaccines........................................... 5 THANK AND TERMINATE
VOLUNTEERED
Don’t know/No response.............................................................................. 6 THANK AND TERMINATE
Less than 20.................................................... 1 THANK AND TERMINATE
20-24............................................................. 2 SEE AGE QUOTAS
25-34............................................................. 3 SEE AGE QUOTAS
35-39............................................................. 4 SEE AGE QUOTAS
40-45............................................................. 5 SEE AGE QUOTAS
46-54............................................................. 6 PUT ON HOLD AND REPORT TO SUPERVISOR
55 and over..................................................... 7 THANK AND TERMINATE
AGE QUOTAS:
GROUPS 1, 3, 5, 7: RECRUIT WOMEN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 20 AND 39 YEARS OLD; MIX OF AGES
GROUPS 2, 4, 6, 8: RECRUIT MIX OF GENDER BETWEEN THE AGES OF 25 AND 45 YEARS OLD; MIX OF AGES
READ RESPONSES IN ORDER—CODE ONE ONLY
Employed full Time........................................... 1
Employed part Time.......................................... 2
Self-Employed.................................................. 3
Unemployed..................................................... 4
Student............................................................ 5
Stay at home.................................................... 6
Retired............................................................. 7
VOLUNTEERED
Refused........................................................... 8
____________________________TERMINATE IF SIMILAR OCCUPATIONS AS IN Q1
______________________________TERMINATE IF SIMILAR OCCUPATIONS AS IN Q1
Less than $30,000 ............................................ 1
At least $30,000 but less than $50,000................ 2
At least $50,000 but less than $75,000................ 3
At least $75,000 but less than $100,000.............. 4
$100,000 or more............................................. 5
VOLUNTEERED
Refused........................................................... 6
Elementary....................................................... 1
Some High School/Vocational............................ 2
Completed High School..................................... 3
Some College / Technical Training ..................... 4
Completed College / Technical Training.............. 5
Some University................................................ 6
Completed University........................................ 7
Caucasian........................................................ 1
Chinese............................................................ 2
South Asian (i.e. East Indian, Pakistani, etc)......... 3
Black............................................................... 4
Filipino............................................................. 5
Latin American................................................. 6
Southeast Asian (i.e. Vietnamese, etc)................ 7
Arab................................................................ 8
West Asian (i.e. Iranian, Afghan, etc).................. 9
Korean............................................................. 10
Japanese.......................................................... 11
Aboriginal (First Nations, Métis, or Inuit)............. 12
Other (please specify)_________________......... 13
I’d prefer not to say.......................................... 14
Yes.................................................................. 1 CONTINUE – Max of 5
No .................................................................. 2 Go To Invitation
IF THEY HAVE BEEN TO A GROUP IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS - THANK & TERMINATE,
IF THEY HAVE BEEN TO 3 OR MORE GROUPS IN THE PAST 5 YEARS - THANK & TERMINATE
IF PARTICIPATED IN A PAST GROUP ON VACCINATION OR ADVERTISEMENT – THANK & TERMINATE
INVITATION
I would like to invite you to participate in a small group discussion, called a focus group, we are conducting at ___ PM, on . As you may know, focus groups are used as research tools to gather information on a particular subject matter; in this case, advertisements. The discussion will consist of 8 to 10 people and will be very informal. This group will last approximately two hours, refreshments will be served and you will receive $100 as a thank you for your time. Would you be interested in attending?
Yes............................................................................... 1 Continue
No .............................................................................. 2 Thank and Terminate
The discussion you will be participating in will be audio and video recorded for use by the research team only. Please be assured your comments and responses are strictly confidential. Are you comfortable with the discussion being audio and video recorded?
Yes............................................................................... 1 Continue
No .............................................................................. 2 Thank and Terminate
The discussion will take place in a focus group room that is equipped with a one-way mirror for observation, allowing members from the research team to observe the discussion while it is happening. Some people may also be observing the discussion remotely [SPECIFY ONLY IF ASKED: via web streaming, through the use of a secure online portal]. Would this be a problem for you?
Yes............................................................................... 1 Thank and Terminate
No .............................................................................. 2 Continue
Participants WILL be asked to read materials AND write out responses. Is it possible for you to take part in these activities in English (French) without assistance during the group discussion?
Yes............................................................................... 1 Continue
No .............................................................................. 2 Thank and Terminate
Since participants in focus groups are asked to express their thoughts and opinions freely in an informal setting with others, we’d like to know how comfortable you are with such an exercise. Would you say you are…?
Very comfortable.......................................................... 1 Continue
Comfortable................................................................. 2 Continue
Not very comfortable.................................................... 3 Thank & Terminate
Not at all comfortable................................................... 4 Thank & terminate
We ask everyone who is participating in the focus group to bring along a piece of I.D., picture if possible.
As these are small groups and with even one person missing, the overall success of the group may be affected, I would ask that once you have decided to attend that you make every effort to do so. In the event you are unable to attend, please call_____ (collect) at ________as soon as possible in order that a replacement may be found.
Please also arrive 15 minutes prior to the starting time. The discussion begins promptly at [TIME]. Anyone arriving after [TIME] will NOT be able to take part in the discussion and will NOT receive the $100 incentive.
Please bring with you reading glasses or anything else that you need to read with or take part in the discussion.
Attention Recruiters
Confirming – DAY BEFORE GROUP
Nom : _______________________________________________________________________
Tél. (domicile) : ___________________________ Autre no : _____________________________
Groupe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
GROUPES DE DISCUSSION :
Montréal, Qc (FRANÇAIS) |
|||
Date : |
Jeudi le 11 janvier 2018 |
Location: |
CRC Montreal |
Heure : |
Groupe 1 – 18h00 – Femmes enceintes inquiètent par rapport aux vaccins |
1610 Ste-Catherine St W |
|
Vancouver, C.-B. (ANGLAIS) |
|||
Date : |
Lundi le 15 janvier 2018 |
Location: |
CRC Vancouver |
Heure : |
Groupe 3 – 18h00 – Femmes enceintes inquiètent par rapport aux vaccins |
1398 W 7th Avenue |
|
Toronto, Ont. (ANGLAIS) |
|||
Date : |
Mercredi le 17 janvier 2018 |
Location: |
CRC Toronto |
Heure : |
Groupe 5 – 18h00 – Femmes enceintes inquiètent par rapport aux vaccins |
1867 Yonge Street – Suite 200 |
|
St. John’s, T.-N.-L. (ANGLAIS) |
|||
Date : |
Jeudi le 18 janvier 2018 |
Location: |
MQO Research |
Heure : |
Groupe 7 – 18h00 – Femmes enceintes inquiètent par rapport aux vaccins |
55 Duckworth Street |
|
Sommaire des exigences |
|
|
|
Hello/Bonjour, je m’appelle ____ et je travaille pour Corporate Research Associates, une société d’étude de marché. Nous menons une étude au nom du gouvernement du Canada, plus précisément pour l’Agence de la santé publique du Canada, et nous recherchons des personnes qui pourraient participer à un petit groupe de discussion. J’aimerais discuter avec une personne de votre foyer qui a au moins 20 ans. Est-ce votre cas? SINON, DEMANDER À PARLER À QUELQU’UN D’AUTRE ET RÉPÉTER L’INTRODUCTION.
Préférez-vous continuer en français ou en anglais? Would you prefer that I continue in English or in French? [SI FRANÇAIS, POURSUIVRE EN FRANÇAIS OU ORGANISER UN RAPPEL AVEC UN INTERVIEWEUR ANGLOPHONE : Nous vous rappellerons pour mener cette entrevue de recherche en français. Merci. Au revoir.]
L’objectif de l’étude et du petit groupe de discussion est d’entendre les opinions des gens sur quelques publicités. Les personnes admissibles et qui participeront au groupe de discussion recevront 100 $ en guise de remerciement pour leur effort.
Puis-je vous poser quelques questions très brèves pour voir si vous faites partie du type de participant que nous recherchons pour ce petit groupe de discussion? Cela prendra 6 ou 7 minutes. Les renseignements que vous fournissez demeureront entièrement confidentiels et vous êtes libre de refuser de participer en tout temps. Merci.
REMERCIER ET TERMINER AU MOMENT REQUIS DU QUESTIONNAIRE DE RECRUTEMENT : Malheureusement, nous ne serons pas en mesure de vous inclure à cette étude. Nous avons déjà un nombre suffisant de participants possédant un profil semblable au vôtre. Je vous remercie du temps que vous nous avez accordé aujourd’hui.
Une femme....................................................... 1
Un homme; ou ................................................. 2
Autre................................................................ 3 CONSIDÉRER SEULEMENT POUR LES GROUPES 2, 4, 6, 8
RÉPONSE SPONTANÉE
Préfère ne pas répondre..................................... 4 CONSIDÉRER SEULEMENT POUR LES GROUPES 2, 4, 6, 8
RECRUTER 9 FEMMES ET 3 HOMMES POUR LES GROUPES 2, 4, 6, 8
RECRUTER DES FEMMES POUR LES GROUPES 1, 3, 5, 7
SI LA RÉPONSE À L’UNE DES OPTIONS CI-DESSUS EST OUI, REMERCIER LA PERSONNE ET TERMINER L’ENTREVUE.
Oui.................................................................. 1 CONSIDÉRER POUR LES GROUPES 2, 4, 6, 8
Non................................................................. 2 ALLER À LA Q6
Vous seulement................................................ 1 CONSIDÉRER POUR LES GROUPES 2, 4, 6, 8
Vous, avec quelque’un d’autre; ou..................... 2 CONSIDÉRER POUR LES GROUPES 2, 4, 6, 8
Quelqu’un d’autre............................................. 3
RÉPONSE SPONTANÉE
Autre (veuillez préciser : ___)............................. 4
[INSCRIRE] _______________
Oui.................................................................. 1 CONSIDÉRER POUR LES GROUPES 1, 3, 5, 7
Non................................................................. 2 POSER LA Q4a
6a. [POSER LA QUESTION AUX FEMMES SEULEMENT ET SI NON À LA Q6] Prévoyez-vous devenir enceinte au cours de la prochaine année?
Oui.................................................................. 1 CONSIDÉRER POUR LES GROUPES 1, 3, 5, 7
Non................................................................. 2
J’accepte ou j’accepterai tous les vaccins recommandés et je n'ai pas
de doutes ni de préoccupations concernant la vaccination ................................. 1 REMERCIER ET TERMINER
J’accepte ou j’accepterai tous les vaccins recommandés mais j'ai des
doutes et préoccupations concernant la vaccination ........................................... 2 CONSIDÉRER
J’ai refusé ou je refuserais ou j’ai retardé ou retarderai l'administration
de certains vaccins............................................................................................ 3 CONSIDÉRER
Je n’ai pas encore pris de décision face à la vaccination pour
mon (mes) enfant(s).............................................................................................. 4 CONSIDÉRER
J’ai refusé ou je refuserai tous les vaccins recommandés.................................... 5 REMERCIER ET TERMINER
DÉCLARATION SPONTANÉE
Ne sais pas/Pas de réponse.................................................................................. 6 REMERCIER ET TERMINER
Moins de 20 ans.............................................. 1 REMERCIER ET TERMINER L’ENTREVUE
De 20 à 24 ans................................................ 2 VOIR LES SPÉCIFICATIONS
De 25 à 34 ans................................................ 3 VOIR LES SPÉCIFICATIONS
De 35 à 39 ans................................................ 4 VOIR LES SPÉCIFICATIONS
De 40 à 45 ans................................................ 5 VOIR LES SPÉCIFICATIONS
De 46 à 54 ans................................................ 6 METTRE EN ATTENTE ET VOIR LE SUPERVISEUR
55 ans ou plus................................................. 7 REMERCIER ET TERMINER L’ENTREVUE
SPÉCIFICATIONS :
GROUPES 1, 3, 5, 7 : RECRUTER DES FEMMES ENTRES 20 et 39 ANS; MÉLANGE D’ÂGES
GROUPES 2, 4, 6, 8 : RECRUTER UN MÉLANGE DE FEMMES ET D’HOMMES ENTRE 25-45 ANS; MÉLANGE D’ÂGES
LIRE LES RÉPONSES DANS L’ORDRE – CODER UNE SEULE RÉPONSE
Employé à temps plein...................................... 1
Employé à temps partiel.................................... 2
Travailleur indépendant..................................... 3
Sans emploi...................................................... 4
Étudiant........................................................... 5
Personne au foyer............................................ 6
Retraité........................................................... 7
DÉCLARATION SPONTANÉE
Refus............................................................... 8
____________________________ TERMINER L’ENTREVUE SI LA PROFESSION EST SEMBLABLE À CELLES DE LA Q1
____________________________ TERMINER L’ENTREVUE SI LA PROFESSION EST SEMBLABLE À CELLES DE LA Q1
Moins de 30 000 $................................................. 1
Au moins 30 000 $, mais moins de 50 000 $......... 2
Au moins 50 000 $, mais moins de 75 000 $......... 3
Au moins 75 000 $, mais moins de 100 000 $....... 4
100 000 $ ou plus.................................................. 5
DÉCLARATION SPONTANÉE
Refus..................................................................... 6
Quel est le plus haut niveau de scolarité que vous avez atteint? - Recruter une combinaison de participants
Études primaires.......................................................................... 1
Études secondaires ou formation professionnelle non terminées..... 2
Études secondaires terminées....................................................... 3
Études collégiales ou formation technique non terminées............... 4
Études collégiales ou formation technique terminées..................... 5
Études universitaires non terminées.............................................. 6
Études universitaires terminées..................................................... 7
Caucasienne................................................................. 1
Chinoise....................................................................... 2
Asiatique du Sud (Indes orientales, pakistanaise, etc.)...... 3
Noire........................................................................... 4
Philippine..................................................................... 5
Latino-américaine......................................................... 6
Asiatique du Sud-Est (vietnamienne, etc.)........................ 7
Arabe........................................................................... 8
Asiatique occidentale (iranienne, afghane, etc.).............. 9
Coréenne..................................................................... 10
Japonaise..................................................................... 11
Autochtone (Première Nations, Métis ou Inuit)................ 12
Autre (veuillez préciser) _________________.................. 13
Je préfère ne pas répondre............................................ 14
Oui.................................................................. 1 CONTINUER – Maximum de 5
Non ................................................................ 2 Passer à l’invitation
SI LA PERSONNE A PARTICIPÉ À UN GROUPE DE DISCUSSION AU COURS DES SIX DERNIERS MOIS, REMERCIER ET TERMINER L’ENTREVUE.
SI LA PERSONNE A PARTICIPÉ À TROIS GROUPES DE DISCUSSION OU PLUS AU COURS DES CINQ DERNIÈRES ANNÉES, REMERCIER ET TERMINER L’ENTREVUE.
SI LA PERSONNE A DÉJÀ PARTICIPÉ À UN GROUPE DE DISCUSSION SUR LA VACCINATION OU LA PUBLICITÉ– REMERCIER ET TERMINER L’ENTREVUE.
INVITATION
J’aimerais vous inviter à participer à un petit groupe de discussion, appelé groupe focus, qui aura lieu à ___ le ____ . Comme vous le savez peut-être, les groupes de discussion servent d’outils de recherche pour recueillir des renseignements sur un sujet précis. Dans le cas qui nous intéresse, il s’agit de publicités. De huit à dix personnes participeront à la discussion, qui sera très informelle. La discussion durera environ deux heures, des rafraîchissements seront servis et vous recevrez 100 $ en guise de remerciement pour votre temps. Aimeriez-vous participer?
Oui............................................................................... 1 Continuer l’entrevue
Non ............................................................................ 2 Remercier et terminer l’entrevue
La discussion à laquelle vous participerez sera enregistrée en format audio et vidéo aux fins d’une utilisation par l’équipe de recherche uniquement. Soyez assuré que vos commentaires et réponses demeureront strictement confidentiels. Êtes-vous à l’aise avec le fait que la discussion soit enregistrée en formats audio et vidéo?
Oui............................................................................... 1 Continuer l’entrevue
Non ............................................................................ 2 Remercier et terminer l’entrevue
La discussion aura lieu dans une pièce consacrée aux groupes de discussion dotée d’un miroir sans tain (qui permet de voir d’un seul côté). L’équipe de recherche pourra ainsi observer la discussion pendant qu’elle se déroule. Certaines personnes peuvent aussi observer la discussion à distance [SPRÉCISER SEULEMENT LORSQUE DEMANDÉ : en transmission en direct sur internet, grâce à l’utilisation d’un portail en ligne sécurisé]. Cela vous pose-t-il problème?
Oui............................................................................... 1 Remercier et terminer l’entrevue
Non ............................................................................ 2 Continuer l’entrevue
Les participants DEVRONT lire des textes ET inscrire des réponses. Êtes-vous en mesure de participer à de telles activités en français (anglais) sans aide pendant le groupe de discussion?
Oui............................................................................... 1 Continuer l’entrevue
Non ............................................................................ 2 Remercier et terminer l’entrevue
Les participants des groupes de discussion doivent exprimer leurs pensées et leur opinion de manière libre et dans un contexte non officiel avec d’autres personnes. À quel point êtes-vous à l’aise avec un tel exercice? Vous sentez-vous…?
Tout à fait à l’aise.......................................................... 1 Continuer l’entrevue
À l’aise......................................................................... 2 Continuer l’entrevue
Pas vraiment à l’aise...................................................... 3 Remercier et terminer l’entrevue
Pas du tout à l’aise........................................................ 4 Remercier et terminer l’entrevue
Nous demandons à tous ceux qui participent au groupe de discussion d’apporter une pièce d’identité avec photo si possible.
Puisqu’il s’agit de petits groupes, l’absence d’une seule personne peut nuire au bon fonctionnement de la discussion. C’est pourquoi je vous demande, si vous avez décidé de participer, de faire tout votre possible pour y assister. Si jamais vous étiez dans l’impossibilité de participer, veuillez communiquer avec _____ (appel à frais virés) au ________ dès que possible afin que nous puissions trouver un autre participant pour vous remplacer.
Aussi, veuillez arriver 15 minutes avant l’heure du début. La discussion commencera à [HEURE] précises. Si vous arrivez après [HEURE], vous ne pourrez PAS prendre part à la discussion et vous ne recevrez PAS la récompense de 100 $.
N’oubliez pas vos lunettes de lecture ou tout ce dont vous pourriez avoir besoin pour lire ou pour participer à la discussion.
Avis aux recruteurs :
Confirmation – LA VEILLE DE LA DISCUSSION
HEALTH CANADA – VACCINATION ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN TESTING
Moderator’s Guide – FINAL
Process: All opinions are important; importance of respecting everyone’s different opinions; looking to understand agreement and disagreement; talk one at a time; interested in hearing from everyone
[EXERCISE #1] Before we look at ideas for advertising about childhood vaccination, I’d like you to complete a brief individual exercise. When we talk about childhood vaccination tonight, we refer to routine vaccines like pertussis (whooping cough), and measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), as well as those to prevent chicken pox. We are not referring to vaccines you get to prevent the flu or in advance of travelling.
Note that your responses will remain confidential (you will not share those with others in the group). I’ll give you a few minutes to complete the exercise. [Moderator reviews statements and scale out loud and gives participants time to complete the exercise]
Group discussion, following the exercise:
Today I’d like to get your thoughts on three concepts for an advertising campaign being considered on the topic of childhood vaccination. For the purpose of our discussion today, each concept includes one or two 30-second videos that could be seen on television, in cinemas, or online. A couple of points before I show you the first concept:
Let’s have a look at the first concept; hold your thoughts as I am showing it to you as you will complete an individual exercise before we discuss this campaign together. Moderator presents one concept at a time – Play video twice - Rotate order of concept across groups.
[EXERCISE #2] Before we chat about this, jot down your individual thoughts on your exercise sheet:
I will give you a moment to complete these exercises before talking about it together.
Discuss, as a group, for each concept:
Overall reaction/Message/Attraction
Target
Clarity /Call to action
Tagline
Let’s have a look at another idea. Moderator presents the second and third concepts and repeat exercises and discussion.
After seeing all three concepts:
Now that we have seen three different concepts….
Group discussion:
That ends our discussion. Thank you for your time and comments. Direct them to the hostess to receive the incentive
INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE SHEET
First Name: ___________________________________
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each statement. Childhood vaccination refers to routine vaccines like pertussis (whooping cough), and measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), as well as those to prevent chicken pox. It does not refer to vaccines you get to prevent the flu or in advance of travelling.
Statement Level of Agreement (1-10)
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE SHEET
First Name: ___________________________________
EXERCISE #2
CONCEPT A:
Main Message:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each statement.
Statement Level of Agreement (1-10)
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
CONCEPT B:
Main Message:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each statement.
Statement Level of Agreement (1-10)
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
CONCEPT C:
Main Message:
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with each statement.
Statement Level of Agreement (1-10)
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
WEBSITE URL
Canada.ca/Childhood-Vaccines
Canada.ca/Kids-Need-Vaccines
Canada.ca/Kids-Vaccines
KISS ALTS for It’s no big deal. They’re vaccinated.
RHYMES ALT for Don’t play with disease. Vaccinate your children.
SANTÉ CANADA – TEST DE LA CAMPAGNE PUBLICITAIRE SUR LA VACCINATION
Guide de l’animateur – Version finale
[EXERCICE no 1] Avant de vous montrer des idées de publicité sur la vaccination pour enfants, j’aimerais vous inviter à faire un bref exercice individuel. Lorsque nous parlerons ce soir de vaccination pour enfants, nous penserons aux vaccins ordinaires comme ceux contre la coqueluche et la rougeole, la rubéole et les oreillons (RRO), ainsi que les vaccins de prévention de la varicelle. Nous ne pensons pas aux vaccins contre la grippe ou aux vaccins dont vous avez besoin avant un voyage.
Veuillez noter que vos réponses resteront confidentielles (vous n’aurez pas à dévoiler vos réponses aux autres participants). Je vais vous laisser quelques minutes pour faire l’exercice. [L’animateur lit les énoncés à voix haute et l’échelle, et donne un moment aux participants pour terminer l’exercice.]
Discussion en groupe après l’exercice :
Aujourd’hui, j’aimerais connaître votre opinion sur trois concepts d’une campagne publicitaire à l’étude qui se penchent sur la vaccination pour enfants. Aux fins des tests d’aujourd’hui, chaque concept comprend une ou deux vidéos de 30 secondes pouvant être visionnées à la télévision, dans les cinémas, ou en ligne. J’aimerais mentionner quelques points avant de vous montrer le premier concept :
Jetons un coup d’œil sur le premier concept. J’aimerais que vous reteniez vos commentaires pendant que je vous le montrerai, car vous devrez d’abord terminer un exercice individuel avant de discuter de la campagne ensemble. L’animateur présente les concepts un à la fois. Présenter deux fois les vidéos. Alterner l’ordre d’un groupe à un autre.
[EXERCICE no 2] Avant la discussion de groupe, je vais vous demander de noter vos opinions sur votre feuille d’exercice :
Je vais vous laisser quelques minutes pour terminer ces exercices avant d’en discuter ensemble.
Discuter en groupe, après chaque concept :
Impression globale/message/attrait
Cible
Clarté/appel à l’action
Slogan
Passons maintenant à une autre idée. L’animateur présente un deuxième et un troisième concept et répète les exercices et la discussion.
Après avoir vu les trois concepts :
Maintenant que nous avons vu les trois concepts….
Discussion en groupe après l’exercice :
Cela termine notre discussion. Merci pour le temps que vous nous avez accordé et pour vos commentaires. Indiquer le chemin jusqu’à l’hôtesse qui remet la récompense aux participants.
FEUILLE D’EXERCICES INDIVIDUELLE
Prénom : _______________________________
Veuillez indiquer à quel point vous êtes d’accord ou en désaccord avec chaque énoncé. La vaccination pour enfants comprend les vaccins ordinaires comme ceux contre la coqueluche et la rougeole, la rubéole et les oreillons (RRO), ainsi que les vaccins de prévention de la varicelle. Ils ne font pas référence aux vaccins contre la grippe ou aux vaccins dont vous avez besoin avant un voyage.
Énoncé Niveau d’accord (1-10)
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
FEUILLE D’EXERCICES INDIVIDUELLE
Prénom : _______________________________
EXERCICE No 2 :
CONCEPT A :
Message principal :
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Veuillez indiquer à quel point vous êtes d’accord ou en désaccord avec chaque énoncé.
Énoncé Niveau d’accord (1-10)
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
CONCEPT B :
Message principal :
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Veuillez indiquer à quel point vous êtes d’accord ou en désaccord avec chaque énoncé.
Énoncé Niveau d’accord (1-10)
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
CONCEPT C :
Message principal :
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
Veuillez indiquer à quel point vous êtes d’accord ou en désaccord avec chaque énoncé.
Énoncé Niveau d’accord (1-10)
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
SITE WEB
Canada.ca/Vaccins-Enfance
Canada.ca/Vaccins-Pour-Enfants
Canada.ca/Vaccination-Enfants
