CHILDHOOD IMMUNISATION EDUCATION CAMPAIGN · evaluation suggest creative materials providing fact-based information (e.g. the 15 second video) are likely to be most effective for

CHILDHOOD IMMUNISATION EDUCATION CAMPAIGN

WAVE 2 EVALUATION

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH REPORT

PREPARED FOR: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

PREPARED BY: SHAE FFRENCH, ADAM FRANKS

AND TABITHA LUCAS

15 JUNE 2018

REF: HEALTH/17-18/03896

RFQ HEALTH/17-18/03896 childhood immunisation education campaign, 15 June 2018

BASTION LATITUDE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 2. BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES 1

2.1 BACKGROUND 1 2.2 CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES 1 2.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 2

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3 3.1 ONLINE SURVEY METHODOLOGY & SAMPLE 3

3.1.1 WEIGHTING & SIGNIFICANCE 3 3.1.2 SUBGROUP & POSTCODE ANALYSIS 4

3.2 POP-UP SURVEY METHODOLOGY & SAMPLE 4 4. CAMPAIGN AWARENESS 5

4.1 UNPROMPTED AWARENESS 5 4.1.1 UNPROMPTED AWARENESS MESSAGE TAKE-OUT 6

4.2 PROMPTED AWARENESS 8 4.2.1 SOURCE OF AWARENESS – PROMPTED (BY CHANNEL) 10 4.2.2 EXPOSURE LEVELS 13

5. CAMPAIGN IMPACT 14 5.1 AGREEMENT WITH CAMPAIGN MESSAGES (BY CAMPAIGN EXPOSURE) 15 5.2 TYPOLOGY 20 5.3 ATTITUDES TOWARDS CHILDHOOD IMMUNISATION 23

6. STATED CAMPAIGN IMPACT 27 7. CAMPAIGN DIAGNOSTICS 31

7.1 MESSAGE TAKE OUT 31 7.2 ELEMENTS STANDING OUT 32 7.3 DIAGNOSTICS: RESPONSE TO VIDEOS 33

8. DEEP DIVE ON AUDIENCES 36 8.1 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: STRONG ADVOCATES 36 8.2 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: NON-SUPPORTERS 38 8.3 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: FIRST TIME MUMS 38 8.4 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: PARTNERS OF PREGNANT WOMEN 39 8.5 UNDERSTANDING IMPACT OF GEo-TARGETING STRATEGY 39 8.6 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: PEOPLE IN AREAS OF HIGH REJECTION /

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION 40 9. MATERNAL VACCINATIONS & NIP AWARENESS 43

9.1 VACCINATIONS WHILE PREGNANT: WHOOPING COUGH 43 9.2 VACCINATIONS WHILE PREGNANT: INFLUENZA VACCINE 43 9.3 AWARENESS OF THE NATIONAL IMMUNISATION PROGRAM (NIP) 44

10. WEBSITE POP-UP SURVEY 46 10.1 REASON FOR VISITATION & VISITOR STATUS 46 10.2 VISITOR RESPONSE TO WEBSITE & IMPACT 48 10.3 VISITORS WHO WERE UNABLE TO FIND INFORMATION 49 10.4 VISITORS WHO FEEL INFORMATION NOT ‘BALANCED’ 50

11. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 51

APPENDIX 52



i

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of Phase 2 of the Department of Health’s ‘Get the facts about immunisation’ education campaign’, a second wave of quantitative tracking was conducted in April-May 2018. This involved a 15-minute online survey with a total of n=2,007 key audiences for the Campaign, including n=1,014 parents of children aged 0-5, n=610 pregnant women, and n=383 partners of pregnant women. The evaluation research also included a short pop-up web survey on the Campaign website.

Overall, the Campaign continues to show strong signs of impacting positively on key measures relating to immunisation perceptions, attitudes, and intended behaviours. National support for childhood vaccination remains consistently high among parents (94% support childhood vaccination, up from 92% in the previous tracking wave). Behaviour continues to improve from already lofty levels: 97% of parents report their children are fully up to date with the schedule (rising from 92% at the Benchmark and 94% in 2017 tracking wave). Future vaccination intent is showing the sharpest increase: 92% of parents indicate it is ‘very likely’ their children will have had all vaccinations on the schedule by age 5, which has increased from 74% in the Benchmark and 87% in the 2017 tracking wave.

Prompted awareness of the Campaign remained relatively stable, essentially unchanged from 2017 levels amongst pregnant women but saw a decline (-4 points) in awareness levels amongst parents, however this was significantly higher in geo-targeted areas (+7 points), indicating that the targeting strategy remains effective. There have been some decreases in awareness of specific campaign elements, including the social media posts. This decline in awareness could be due to the fact that the social media posts did not run for the full campaign period. However, the fact that the Campaign has maintained relatively stable awareness levels (and increased awareness in geo-targeted areas) is a strong result, given the issues with the scheduling of the social media posts. Had the media spread mirrored the Phase 1 run, we could expect to have seen increased levels of awareness reflected in this Phase 2 of the tracking study. There is no indication of wear out, with the vast majority happy to see the Campaign again in the future. This is a strong result that indicates the Campaign is being well received and is highly relevant.

Consistent with the previous wave, two in three parents report taking some action after seeing the Campaign. The Campaign continues to act as a reminder for parents, with the most common action taken to check if their child(ren)’s vaccinations are up to date. Also consistent with the previous wave, those in the geo-targeted areas are significantly more likely (+11 points) to report that they took some action as a result of seeing the campaign than those in non-targeted areas.

All audiences (pregnant women in particular) are really connecting with the personal stories of the families who lost infants to vaccine preventable diseases - it is the strongest aspect and emotional core of the Campaign. Among ‘non-supporter’ audiences, outright rejection of all vaccinations is quite rare - most commonly, these people are more concerned about the number / frequency of vaccines on the schedule for babies. Future messaging focusing on the safety of the number and frequency of the vaccinations on the NIP schedule could address this concern. Partners of pregnant women could be a key opportunity to drive education as they are keen to seek out information, highly involved in decision-making, and tend to be strong advocates regarding childhood immunisation. The findings of the evaluation suggest creative materials providing fact-based information (e.g. the 15 second video) are likely to be most effective for this group.



1

2. BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

2.1 BACKGROUND

Australia has a strong and internationally recognised National Immunisation Program (NIP) schedule, which covers 17 diseases. As a result of years of successful vaccination programs, many diseases either no longer occur or are extremely rare in Australia. Vaccination helps protect individuals and the community generally, by increasing immunity and thereby minimising the spread of infection.

Although the great majority of children in Australia are immunised, it is important to maintain high immunisation rates to reduce the risk of outbreaks of these and other diseases recurring. While nationally the percentage of children fully immunised is over 94% (for children at five years of age), there are pockets of the community where immunisation rates are lower, thereby threatening ‘herd immunity’.

Public support for childhood immunisation is generally high, as evidenced by high compliance rates, and supported by the recent research findings. However, research suggests that some misconceptions persist regarding vaccinations.

To ensure continued support for and compliance with vaccination programs in Australia, the Department of Health (the Department) developed the Childhood Immunisation Education Campaign (the Campaign). The first phase (Phase 1) of the Campaign commenced on 13th August 2017 and ran until 9 September 2017, with targeted advertising using online channels and social media, and information resources including brochures and posters sent to childcare and early education services Australia wide.

The Department has since rolled out a second phase (Phase 2) of the Campaign which ran from 4 March to 14 April 2018 (six weeks).

2.2 CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES

The overall aim of the ‘Get the facts about immunisation’ campaign (the Campaign) is to increase awareness and confidence in the NIP by reinforcing the benefits of immunisation at the broader level.

The target audiences for the Campaign are parents of children aged 0-5, and pregnant women and their partners, including people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds.

The specific communication objectives of the Campaign include:

• To inform audiences of the benefits of childhood vaccination both to individuals and the community;

• To inform audiences of the facts about childhood vaccination and address any perceived misconceptions;

• To increase confidence in the NIP’s role in protecting Australians from vaccine preventable diseases;

• To generate an increased intention to participate and complete childhood vaccinations on schedule.

The Campaign activity also targeted those in areas of lower vaccination rates (geo-targeted postcodes).



2

2.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Three waves of research, including benchmark and two waves of evaluation have been conducted to measure the effectiveness of the Campaign, as outlined below:

Consistent with Wave 1 of the evaluation research, the key research objective of Wave 2 was to track and measure the effectiveness of the Campaign against the communications objectives.

The evaluation research program measures the current effectiveness of the Campaign, compared to the Wave 1 and benchmark results, covering:

• Level of campaign awareness

• Relevance and credibility of campaign messages

• Impact on attitudes towards vaccination

• Awareness of information resources

• Intentions and commitment to vaccinate

This wave of research also identifies through further analysis, areas for improvement for future iterations of the Campaign.

The primary target audiences for Wave 2 of the evaluation research were:

• Parents of children aged 0-5 years

• Pregnant women

• Partners of pregnant women

START

2016-2017

BENCHMARKING

SEPTEMBER 2017

TRACKING WAVE 1Qualitat ive developmental research & Quanti tat ive

benchmarking phase with parents of children 0-5

National onl ine survey with Parents of children 0-5 & Pregnant women

Pop-up exit survey on the ‘ Immunisat ion –Get the Facts’

website.

APRIL-MAY 2018

TRACKING WAVE 2

National online survey with Parents of chi ldren 0-5, Pregnant women & Partners of pregnant women

Pop-up exit survey on the ‘Immunisation –Get the Facts ’ website.



3

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 ONLINE SURVEY METHODOLOGY & SAMPLE

To measure the impact of Phase 2 of the Campaign, a 15-minute online survey was conducted with n=2,007 respondents to evaluate campaign awareness, message take out, and impact on attitudes and intentions to vaccinate.

The survey focused on the three primary target audiences, which have been presented separately throughout this report:

• Parents of children aged 0-5 (n=1,014), including n=651 mothers, n=361 fathers, and n=2 non-binary gendered parents)

• Pregnant women (n=610), including a booster sample of n=300 first-time expectant mums)

• Partners of pregnant women (n=383), new sample this wave (including n=15 same-sex partners, n=207 expecting their first child, and n=176 who already have other children)

The above sample included n=263 participants from the geo-targeted areas of low immunisation rates, and a further n=1,744 participants from a nationally representative spread of non-targeted postcodes. The sample also included a sample of people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds (n=67), and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (n=473). A full sample profile is included in the Appendix.

The quantitative fieldwork ran from April 16 through to May 7, 2018 – commencing at the end of the primary media activity for Phase 2 of the Campaign in order to capture awareness at peak levels. These results have been compared back to the Phase 1 evaluation research conducted by Bastion Latitude in late 2017, as well as the Benchmark results conducted by Snapcracker Research in early 2017.

The survey questionnaire was modelled on both the Benchmark and Phase 1 questionnaires to allow for measurement of any significant or indicative differences on key measures pre- and post-Campaign.

3.1.1 WEIGHTING & SIGNIFICANCE

The sample was weighted on age, gender and first child status to bring the Wave 2 sample in line with that of previous waves, ensuring that results are indicative of ‘true’ shifts, not due to sample differences. The non-geo-targeted sample was weighted to nationally representative figures on location (based on current ABS figures). The geo-targeted sample was not weighted on location, as this grouping was based on specific postcodes of lower vaccination rates.



4

Throughout this report, significant shifts between groups and waves (at a .95 confidence interval) are marked:

3.1.2 SUBGROUP & POSTCODE ANALYSIS

Subgroup analysis was conducted on a range of key demographic and profiling measures, including:

Gender

Age

First child vs. additional children (for pregnant women and partners only – if the child they are expecting is their first, or if they also have other children)

Cultural and linguistic diversity

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background

Involvement in parents’ groups

Child’s enrolment in day care

Employment status

Education level

Relationship status

Household income

Location: Metro vs. Regional

Typology / support for childhood vaccination

Any significant or key differences between these sub-groups have been highlighted throughout this report.

Analysis was also conducted on the ‘geo-targeted’ postcodes (SA3s) to measure the effectiveness of targeting in areas of lower vaccination rates. Differences within these ‘geo-targeted’ postcodes have been noted throughout this report:

1. ‘Geo-targeted all’ (all geo-targeted postcodes) (n=263)

2. ‘Non-targeted’ (Nationally representative) (n=1,744)

Post-fieldwork, a need was identified to review responses of those in postcodes noted as having higher and ‘borderline’ reported conscientious objection and rejection rates, this analysis has been addressed separately (see section 8.5 of this report).

3.2 POP-UP SURVEY METHODOLOGY & SAMPLE

The evaluation research included a supplementary short pop-up web survey on the Campaign website to add richness to the click-through data. The intent of this separate, four-question survey was to help understand who is visiting the Campaign website, what brought them there, as well as the perceived relevance and credibility of the information available.

Signif i cantly increase / above

Signif i cant decrease / below



5

The short survey captured:

Purpose of visit

Support of childhood vaccination

Response to information on the website

Impact on feelings about future decisions regarding childhood immunisation

Visitors to the Campaign website were invited to take a short survey via a pop-up window, shown on exit intent or after 1 minute on the site. The pop-up survey was live on the Campaign website from March 7 – May 4 2018. The pop-up received 7,309 impressions and 457 click-throughs, resulting in n=323 completed surveys. The click through rate of 6.3% is within the expected range of 5-8% for pop-ups.

4. CAMPAIGN AWARENESS

4.1 UNPROMPTED AWARENESS

Unprompted awareness of any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination remains high. As shown in Figure 1, half (49%) of parents with children aged 0-5 and two-thirds (66%) of pregnant women report they have recently seen some form of advertising or information relating to childhood vaccination. These levels remain in line with the previous wave of research. Partners of pregnant women are also highly attuned to information and advertising, although awareness levels are slightly lower than that of their pregnant partners (58% compared to 66%).

Figure 1: Unprompted awareness of any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination

Source: Q9. Have you seen/heard any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination recently? Base, 2017 Tracking wave: Pregnant women, n=307, Parents 0-5 n=1,034. 2018 Tracking wave: Pregnant women, n=610, Parents 0-5 n=1,014, Partner, n=383. Weighted.

Several significant differences between sub-groups on this measure exist, as shown in Figure 2. Within the parent sample, mothers’ unprompted awareness of advertising or

63%66%

2017 2018

50% 49%

2017 2018

58%

2018

PREGNANT

Fi rst t ime mums dr ive the shi f t

(+17% on 2017 f igures) , suggest ing

th is i s high on the radar for thi s

cohort

PARENT (0-5)

Parenta l awareness experienced no

change.

PARTNER

Awareness si ts sl i ght ly below that of

their pregnant counterpar t .

Impor tantl y: +12% in geo- targeted

areas



6

information regarding childhood vaccination is 15 points higher than that for fathers. Those pregnant and currently in a mothers’ or parents’ group are significantly more likely (+11 points) to be attuned to advertising or information on this topic, as are those parents who have their children in day care or intending to enrol their children in day care (+12 points). This pattern of higher awareness among people involved in parents’ groups and people who choose day care for their children will be seen across many measures and mirrors the trend uncovered in Phase 1 of this study.

Figure 2: Unprompted awareness of any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination, by subgroups

Source: Q9. Have you seen/heard any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination recently? Base, 2017 Tracking wave: Pregnant women, n=307, Parents 0-5 n=1,034. 2018 Tracking wave: Pregnant women, n=610, Parents 0-5 n=1,014, Partner, n=383. Weighted. Note: results for female partners not shown as base size is too low.

4.1.1 UNPROMPTED AWARENESS MESSAGE TAKE-OUT

Participants who could recall seeing or hearing any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination were then asked (in an open-ended response) what the ‘main message’ of that advertising or information was, or what it was ‘trying to tell them’.

The most common unprompted message take-out for any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination was related to the flu vaccine for children under five years old. 2017 saw an increase of deaths relating to the flu, and the introduction of the free flu vaccination for those under the age of 5 years old through state funded programs. Respondents commonly mentioned hearing about these free flu vaccination programs for children in news articles. There were also significant increases in mentions of specific diseases, medical professionals and educational establishments by pregnant women and parents.

Seen or heard any advertising/information Pregnant Partner Parent

Female 66% 53% ▲

Male 58% 38%

Under 30 years old 76% ▲ 70% ▲ 61% ▲

Over 30 years old 61% 55% 46%

Attending / planning to attend daycare 66% 62% 52% ▲

Not attending daycare 67% 47% 40%

Currently in parent’s group 74% ▲ 64% 54%

Not currently in parent’s group 63% 53% 47%

CALD 68% 69% ▲ 59% ▲

Non-CALD 66% 54% 47%

Metro 61% 64% ▲ 48%

Regional 74% ▲ 44% 52%

NET 66% 59% 49%



7

Overall, we note that the focus on ‘No Jab No Pay/Play’ has settled; while messages relating to ‘No Jab No Pay’ and ’No Jab No Play’ policies were top of mind last wave - this has significantly decreased for this wave, indicating audiences may have become accustomed to the policies.

Isolating the states which did implement the ‘No Jab No Play’ policy (VIC, NSW & QLD vs. all other states) revealed only minor shifts in these trends. This suggests that although the policy may have been geographically limited in implementation, the ‘buzz’ around the policy still carried across the country.

In 2018 the discussion has given way to a new focus on flu vaccines. Announcements and messaging relating to the government initiative to make flu vaccines free for children under 5 aligned with dates for the Phase 2 fieldwork. This is the messaging currently most top of mind for all audiences when thinking about childhood immunisation, with a quarter of pregnant and women and parents mentioning free flu vaccines for children.

Figure 3: Unprompted message take out (open ended response)

7%

13%

20%

12%

7%

1%

8%

0%

5%

8%

25%

23%

19%

18%

24%

6%

4%

8%

7%

4%

Flu vaccine

Rela t ing to vacc inat ion for ch i ld ren / bab ies

Vacc ination is impor tant / p revents the spread o f d isease/saves l ives

Spec if ic d iseases ment ioned

Doctor, nurse, GP or c l in ic / hosp i ta l mentioned

Cost

No jab no payments / Wi thho ld ing government benef i ts

Educat iona l es tab l ishment

Up to date , schedu le , reminder o f vacc inat ion

No jab no play

15%

19%

17%

5%

4%

4%

4%

4%

3%

4%

PREGNANT

2017

2018

PARTNER



8

Source: Q10. What was that advertising or tracking trying to tell you? Base, 2017 Tracking wave: Pregnant women, n=190, Parents 0-5 n=513. 2018 Tracking wave: Pregnant women, n=396, Parents 0-5 n=488, Partner, n=224. Weighted.

Additional message take-outs were of a more general nature; vaccinations for children and babies and the importance of vaccinations to prevent the spread of disease and save lives.

Amongst partners of pregnant women, we see the cut-through of more general messaging but not the specific details of campaigns. This could indicate that while partners are attuned to messaging on this topic generally, they are not seeing a call-to-action that is directed at them (e.g. what their role as a partner or father could be in terms of decisions and future planning).

4.2 PROMPTED AWARENESS

Overall, prompted awareness of the ‘Get the facts about immunisation’ education campaign (the Campaign) remained relatively stable, essentially unchanged from 2017 levels amongst pregnant women (down 2 points to 21% aware this wave), but saw a significant decline in awareness levels amongst parents (overall, down 4 points to 12% aware this wave). However, higher awareness levels were achieved amongst parents living in geo-targeted postcodes, with 19% of parents in geo-targeted areas aware of the Campaign (+7% on those not in the geo-targeted areas, and +3% compared to 2017). This indicates that despite a small decline in awareness overall, the geo-targeting strategy is clearly effective for this audience – as awareness has built from 2017 levels.

The proportion of audiences who have seen any element of the Campaign (constructed variable) saw a drop from 2017, with 29% of pregnant women and 21% of parents this wave reporting they had seen at least one element of the Campaign (down 8 points and 4

7%

19%

19%

10%

8%

1%

22%

0%

7%

13%

24%

22%

17%

15%

14%

8%

7%

7%

9%

4%

Flu vaccine

Relating to vaccination for children / babies

Vaccination is important / prevents thespread of disease/saves lives

Specific diseases mentioned

Doctor, nurse, GP or clinic/ hospitalmentioned

Cost

No jab no payments / Withholdinggovernment benefits

Educational establishment

Up to date, schedule, reminder ofvaccination

No jab no play

PARENT (0-5)

2017

2018



9

points respectively). This follows on from decreases in awareness of specific Campaign elements, more detail on this below (see Figure 7 and Figure 8).

Figure 4: Prompted awareness of the campaign

Source: Q21, Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Q22, Q22B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on websites. Have you seen this ad (or any other similar ads from this campaign) online lately? Q28. Have you seen this video before today? Base, 2017 Tracking wave: Pregnant, n=307, 2018 Tracking wave: Pregnant, n=610. Weighted. Base, 2017 Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,034. 2018 Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,014, weighted. Base, 2018 Tracking wave: Partner, n=383. Unweighted.

Interestingly, we saw significantly higher levels of awareness among partners than the other two audiences (30% of partners aware of campaign). On overall prompted awareness, partners report the highest level of prompted awareness levels at 30%, 9 points higher than pregnant women and 18 points higher than parents of children aged 5 years or younger. This does follow a general trend among campaign tracking studies, that males are more likely to report seeing information and advertising. It appears that the (majority male) partners of pregnant women could potentially be overstating their awareness of the Campaign. However, other elements throughout this study, particularly the open-ended message take out questions, reveal that this audience is highly attuned to information about childhood immunisation. These results therefore should be considered carefully, and a further tracking wave will clarify if this is a reliable awareness result.

As discussed above, Figure 5 shows that while a significant decline in awareness levels amongst parents exists, higher awareness levels were achieved amongst parents living in geo-targeted postcodes (+7%), with 19% aware of the campaign (+3% on 2017). Pregnant women in the geo-targeted areas were also more likely to be aware of the Campaign (23% aware in geo-targeted postcodes vs 20% non-targeted). However, partners in the geo-targeted areas are actually slightly less likely to be aware of the Campaign (27% aware in geo-targeted postcodes vs. 30% in non-targeted). As this is inconsistent with the finding that partners tend to have higher awareness of the campaign, future evaluations should explore this issue further.

16%

12%

2017 2018

PARENT (0-5) PREGNANT

23%

21%

2017 2018

30%

2018

PARTNER



10

Figure 5: Prompted awareness of the Campaign by geo-targeted status

Several significant differences exist between sub-groups regarding prompted awareness levels, as shown below in Figure 6. Pregnant women and partners aged 30 years and under are more likely to be aware of the Campaign once prompted compared to those aged over 30 years. Higher prompted awareness levels were also recorded amongst those people involved in parents’ groups and people who choose daycare for their children. Parents with household incomes under $100,000 (before tax) were significantly more likely to be aware of the campaign.

Figure 6: Prompted awareness of the Campaign by sub-groups

Source: Q21, Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Q22, Q22B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on websites. Have you seen this ad (or any other similar ads from this campaign) online lately? Q28. Have you seen this video before today? Base, 2017 Tracking wave: Pregnant, n=307, 2018 Tracking wave: Pregnant, n=610. Weighted. Base, 2017 Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,034. 2018 Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,014, weighted. Base, 2018 Tracking wave: Partner, n=383. Unweighted.

4.2.1 SOURCE OF AWARENESS – PROMPTED (BY CHANNEL)

While overall awareness is relatively steady, awareness of specific Campaign elements has dropped from the previous wave. Figure 7 shows that awareness of the Facebook posts and videos in particular has dropped significantly from 2017 levels. Of particular note, among parents, awareness of the Facebook carousel dropped from 11% to 6%, the Facebook video link posts dropped from 14% to 10%, and the 45 second video from 12% to 7%. Pregnant women followed a similar pattern, with significant drops in awareness for the digital display ads (22% to 15%) and the 45 second video (22% to 15%).

Prompted awareness of campaign Pregnant Partner Parent

Not geo-targeted 20% 30% 12%

Geo-targeted all 23% 27% 19%

NET 21% 30% 12%


Under 30 years old 29% ▲ 41% ▲ 15%




Currently in parent’s group 31% ▲ 38% ▲ 14%


Under 100K 24% 25% 16% ▲

Over 100K 18% 34% 9%

NET 21% 30% 12%



11

Figure 7: Source of campaign awareness (prompted)

Source: Q21, Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Q22, Q22B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on websites. Have you seen this ad (or any other similar ads from this campaign) online lately? Q28. Have you seen this video before today? Base, 2017 Tracking wave: Pregnant, n=307, Parents 0-5 n=1,034. 2018 Tracking wave: Pregnant, n=610, Parents 0-5 n=1,014, Partner, n=383. Weighted.

Following on from the lower awareness of specific Campaign elements, we also saw a drop in the proportion of audiences who had seen any element of the Campaign. 29% of pregnant women reported seeing any element (-8%), and 21% of parents (-4%). This is shown in Figure 8, which represents a constructed variable, comprised of positive responses to prompted awareness of the Campaign overall and to a range of Campaign elements (Facebook ads, Facebook posts, online ads, videos), resulting in the proportion of the sample who have seen one or more elements of the Campaign (i.e. the proportion who answered ‘yes’ to one or more of these awareness questions).

26%

28%

33%

27%

24%

24%

17%

21%

22%

17%

12%

22%

13%

16%

15%

19%

8%

15%

Facebook carousel

Facebook/video l inks

Digital display ads

Website ads

15 second

45 second

11%

14%

12%

13%

11%

12%

6%

10%

10%

9%

7%

7%

PREGNANT PARENT (0-5) PARTNER

2017

2018



12

Figure 8: Seen any element of campaign (constructed variable)

Source: Q21, Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Q22, Q22B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on websites. Have you seen this ad (or any other similar ads from this campaign) online lately? Q28. Have you seen this video before today? Base, 2017 Tracking wave: Pregnant, n=307, Parents 0-5 n=1,034. 2018 Tracking wave: Pregnant, n=610, Parents 0-5 n=1,014, Partner, n=383. Weighted.

This decline in awareness could be due to the fact that the planned social media spend and reach for the full campaign period was compacted into the first three weeks of the campaign. This resulted in reduced Facebook activity from 24 March to 14 April 2018 (campaign end). Given the fact that the social media advertising was so central to the Campaign, and the Facebook video activity was the most common source of prompted awareness, it follows that differences in the media run would impact overall awareness. Crucially, the fact that the social media video activity ended more than 3 weeks before the official end of the Campaign run (and the start of the quantitative fieldwork) has almost certainly had a negative impact on awareness as measured by this evaluation.

Aligned with overall awareness, those in geo-targeted areas were more likely to have seen at least one element of the Campaign. 31% of pregnant women in the geo-targeted postcodes reported they had seen at least one element of the campaign, as compared to 28% in the non-targeted postcodes. Parents in the geo-targeted areas were also more likely to have seen at least one element of the campaign (23% in geo-targeted postcodes vs. 20% in non-targeted areas). The targeting does not appear to be impacting on partners’ awareness, who had equally high levels of awareness (42% seen at least one element in both the geo-targeted and non-targeted areas).

The fact that the Campaign has maintained relatively stable awareness levels

(and increased awareness in geo-targeted areas) is a strong result, given the

issues with the scheduling of the social media posts. Had the media spread

mirrored the Phase 1 run, we could expect to have seen increased levels of

awareness reflected in this Phase 2 of the tracking study.

37% 29

%

2017 2018

25%

21%

2017 2018

42%

2017 2018




13

4.2.2 EXPOSURE LEVELS

There is no indication of over-exposure or fatigue with the Campaign; the majority (50-53%) have only seen the Campaign once or twice, and a strong majority (83%-91%) report they would be happy to see the Campaign again (Figure 8, below).

Figure 9: Campaign Exposure Levels

Source: Q26B. Thinking about the ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ campaign, how many times would you say you’ve seen the campaign overall? Q26C. How would you feel about seeing this campaign again? Base, Tracking wave, those who have seen the campaign. Base, 2017 tracking wave: Seen at least one element of the campaign: Parents 0-5 n=258, Pregnant women, n=115. 2018 tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=189, Pregnant n=149, Partner n=151. Weighted.

This lack of over-exposure or fatigue is consistent across all three key audiences and between demographic and profiling sub-groups. This result is consistent with the Campaign diagnostics showing an extremely high level of relevance for these audiences. In tracking and evaluation studies, we typically see a higher risk of fatigue for campaigns with lower levels of perceived relevance; audiences are happy to see campaigns they feel are directed at them and providing useful information.

There is no indication of wear out, with the vast majority happy to see the

campaign again in the future. This is a strong result that indicates the

campaign is being well received and is highly relevant to the target audiences.

5% 7%6% 3%

31%41%

58%50%

I ’ve seen the campaign once or twice

I ’ve seen the campaign a few t imes

I ’ve seen the campaign many t imes

Not sure


8%14%

3%

5%

38%29%

51% 53%

4%

10%

34%

52%

2017 2018 2017 2018 2018

I would be okay with seeing the campaign again

84% 91% 85% 84% 83%



14

5. CAMPAIGN IMPACT

Overall, the Campaign continues to show strong signs of impacting positively on key measures relating to immunisation perceptions, attitudes, and intended behaviours. Figure 10 shows positive trends on the three key measures among parents.

Support for childhood vaccination remains consistently high among parents (94% support childhood vaccination, up from 92% in previous wave). Behaviour continues to improve from already lofty levels - 97% of parents report their children are fully up to date with the schedule (rising from 92% at the Benchmark and 94% in 2017 tracking wave). Future vaccination intent is showing the sharpest increase: 92% of parents indicate it is ‘very likely’ their children will have had all vaccinations on the schedule by age 5, which has increased from 74% in the Benchmark and 87% in the 2017 tracking wave.

Figure 10: Support of childhood vaccination and behaviour (Parents)

Q11. Overall, how do you feel about childhood vaccination? Q12. Have your children been immunised? Q13. How likely are your children to have had all the vaccinations on the schedule before they are five? Base: Benchmark parents n=872, 2017 Tracking Parents 0-5 n=1034. 2018 Tracking Parents n=1014. Weighted.

The 3-point gap between support of childhood vaccinations (94%) and having all children fully up to date (97%) is driven by parents in the ‘Worriers’ and ‘Cautious Considerers’ typologies. This small group of parents may not fully support childhood vaccinations, but they nevertheless have their children fully immunised. While sample sizes are low, the data suggests that this group was more attuned to ‘No Jab No Pay / Play’ messaging, supporting the idea that government regulation focused on personal incentives played a role in nudging the decision to vaccinate their children.

92%

94%

97%

74%

87%

92%

93%

92%

94%

Benchmark 2017 2018

Fully up to date with theschedule for their age

Strongly support it

Very likely all vaccinationwill be had before age 5

Support it



15

The positive trends across these three key measures (support of childhood vaccination, children currently up to date with schedule, and plan for children to have all vaccinations by age 5) is highly encouraging. It shows that parents are supportive of immunisation.

Consistent with Wave 1, childcare attendance (or planned attendance) is a key factor in support for vaccination, having children currently up to date with the schedule, and future intent to vaccinate. While the correlation between childcare attendance and positive vaccination behaviours is clear, we cannot say from this study if there is a directional causation. It could be that parents who are likely to send their children to day care are those who are more likely to be supportive of immunisation in the first place. This could be revealing the impact of ‘No Jab No Play’ regulations (i.e. parents in childcare more likely to vaccinate due to requirements for attendance), or there could also be a positive impact from childcare attendance itself (i.e. parents who are linked into childcare community more likely to speak about and be exposed to other parents’ positive views on immunisation). Further exploratory research with parents whose children are attending or planning to attend day care would be required in order to fully understand the drivers for these correlated behaviours.

Figure 11: Support of childhood vaccination and behaviour (Subgroups)

5.1 AGREEMENT WITH CAMPAIGN MESSAGES (BY CAMPAIGN EXPOSURE)

Prior to being exposed to stimulus materials in the survey, participants were asked for their level of agreement with a range of statements about childhood vaccination and vaccines,

Children fully up to date with vaccination schedule for their age

Pregnant Partner Parent



NET 93% 91% 97%

Future intent – Children very likely to have had all vaccinations before 5




NET 89% 78% 92%

Total Support for vaccination (strongly support + support)


Attending / planning to attend daycare 98% ▲ 93% ▲ 96% ▲


Currently in parent’s group 95% 97% ▲ 96%


NET 95% 91% 94%



16

which related directly to messages in the Campaign. These results were then cut by those aware of the Campaign (seen) and not aware (not seen).

Results below show that audiences exposed to the Campaign are more likely to agree with a range of key Campaign messages relating to immunisation than those not exposed to the Campaign.

Figure 12: Agreement with campaign messages (strongly agree ratings – by campaign exposure)

65%

29%

44%

65%

34%

43%

69%

35%

51%

68%

49%

51%

V acc i na t i on p ro tec ts ch i ld ren f r om ser ious d iseases

T he ra te o f ch i l dhood vacc inat i on i n Aus t ra l i a i s no t

h igh enough

Ch i l dr en are mor e a t r is k o f ca tch i ng d i seases i n ar eas t ha t have low vacc i nat ion

ra tes

G et t i ng you r ch i ld vacc ina ted is i mpor tan t because i t a l so

p ro tec t s o ther ch i l d ren , espec i a l l y new bo rn bab ies

V acc i nes st imu l a te your na tu ra l def ence sys tems ,

mak i ng the i mmune sys tem s t ronge r

C hi ld r en shoul d rece ive ever y vacc inat ion on t ime

Not Seen Seen

PREGNANT

54%

34%

44%

55%

48%

47%

48%

33%

46%

51%

43%

49%

Not Seen Seen

PARTNER



17

Source: Q18. Below are some statements about childhood vaccination and vaccines. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. Base, Tracking wave 2018 Seen: Pregnant n=161, Parent n=205, Partner n=160, Not seen Pregnant n=449, Parent n=809, Partner n=223. Weighted

Amongst pregnant women, those who had seen at least one element of the Campaign are significantly more likely to strongly agree that ‘vaccines stimulate your natural defence systems, making the immune system stronger’ (49% if seen vs. 34% if not seen). Those exposed to the Campaign are also more likely to strongly agree that ‘children should receive every vaccination on time’ (51% if seen vs. 43% if not seen).

We also see that those expecting their first child (irrespective of if they have been exposed to the campaign or not) are significantly less likely to strongly agree that ‘vaccination protects children from serious diseases (-12%), or that ‘it protects other children, especially newborn babies’ (-11%). These findings indicate that pregnant women can be supported with more information and advice about vaccination, noting that parents of children aged 0-5 years have already had personal experience with vaccinations and are engaged with health professionals about childhood immunisation.

Parents who have seen the Campaign are significantly more likely to strongly agree that ‘the rate of childhood vaccination in Australia is not high enough (37% if seen vs. 30% if not seen) and that ‘children are more at risk of catching diseases in areas that have low vaccination rates (57% if seen vs. 42% if not seen). Those exposed to the Campaign are also more likely to strongly agree that ‘vaccinations stimulate your natural defence system’ and ‘children should receive every vaccination on time’.

There are fairly stable levels of agreement amongst partners of pregnant women when comparing results for those who have seen and not seen the Campaign.

63%

30%

42%

63%

33%

42%

63%

37%

57%

65%

45%

51%

Vaccination protects children fromserious diseases

The rate of childhood vaccination inAustralia is not high enough

Children are more at risk of catchingdiseases in areas that have low

vaccination rates

Getting your child vaccinated isimportant because it also protectsother children, especially newborn

babies

Vaccines stimulate your naturaldefence systems, making the immune

system stronger

Children should receive everyvaccination on t ime

Not Seen Seen

PARENT (0-5)



18

Consistent increases in positive vaccination attitudes for audiences who have been exposed to the Campaign is a clear indication that the Campaign continues to be effective and is meeting the communication objectives.

There are also several significant differences between sub-groups regarding agreement with key statements, these are outlined for each audience (pregnant women, partners, parents) below.

Among pregnant women (Figure 13, below), non-CALD women were significantly more likely to strongly agree that vaccinations protect children from serious diseases, the rate of childhood vaccinations is not high enough in Australia and that getting your child vaccinated is important as it protects other children and babies.

Pregnant women from CALD backgrounds were less likely to strongly agree that ‘vaccination improves the health of the whole community’ (52% CALD vs 68% non-CALD).

Figure 13: % Strongly agree with statements – Pregnant Sub-groups

Source: Q18. Below are some statements about childhood vaccination and vaccines. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. 2018 Tracking wave: Pregnant, n=610, Weighted.

For partners, involvement in parents’ groups is also a positive factor, this group is significantly more likely to strongly agree with the key positive statements if they (or their partner) are currently involved in a parents’ group (Figure 14, below). Older partners (those over 30 years old), and those who also have other children, are also more likely to agree with the key statements. This trend is most dramatic for the key message that

Strongly Agree with the following statements -Pregnant

'Vaccination protects children

from serious diseases

The rate of childhood

vaccination in Australia is not high

enough

Children are more at risk of

catching diseases in areas that have low

vaccination rates

Getting your child vaccinated

is important because it also protects other

children, especially

newborn babies

Vaccines stimulate your

natural defencesystems,

making the immune system

stronger

Children should receive every

vaccination on time

Under 30 years old 67% 41% 51% 69% 46% ▲ 46%

Over 30 years old 63% 31% 43% 62% 30% 45%

Attending / planning to attend daycare

66% 37% 48% 68% ▲ 38% 49%

Not attending daycare 59% 28% 41% 54% 29% 36%

Currently in parent’s group 67% 45% ▲ 49% 67% 43% 47%

Not currently in parent’s group

63% 29% 45% 63% 33% 45%

CALD 48% 22% 43% 51% 35% 35%

Non-CALD 68% ▲ 38% ▲ 47% 68% ▲ 36% 48%

Metro 61% 29% 41% 59% 35% 42%

Regional 69% 43% ▲ 55% 73% ▲ 37% 50%

Seen Campaign 66% 43% 59% ▲ 68% 47% ▲ 56% ▲

Not Seen Campaign 64% 31% 41% 63% 31% 41%

Under 100K 70% 39% 51% 69% 42% 55% ▲

Over 100K 59% 31% 42% 61% 31% 37%

Not geo-targeted 67% ▲ 36% 48% ▲ 67% ▲ 37% 46%

Geo-targeted all 49% 26% 32% 50% 31% 38%

NET 64% 34% 46% 65% 36% 45%



19

‘vaccination protects children from serious diseases’; 57% of partners aged over 30 strongly agree with this statement, significantly higher than partners aged under 30, 37% of whom strongly agree.

Figure 14: % Strongly agree with statements – Partner Sub-groups

Source: Q18. Below are some statements about childhood vaccination and vaccines. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. 2018 Tracking wave: Partner, n=383. Weighted.

Non-CALD parents also had consistently higher levels of agreement with the key statements (Figure 15 – below). Almost double the proportion of non-CALD parents (34%) strongly agreed that ‘the rate of childhood vaccination in Australia is not high enough’, as compared to CALD parents (16%).

Overall agreement with the 'Positive Attitudes' statements follows the same pattern as strong agreement - CALD individuals were less likely to agree with statements like 'vaccinations protect the health of the whole community'. These patterns indicate that while CALD parents and expectant parents are generally positive / supportive about immunising their children (in line with broader population), they may have lower awareness about the specific reasons why it is important / lower levels of understanding of concepts such as herd immunity.

Figure 15: % Strongly agree with statements – Parent Sub-groups

Source: Q18. Below are some statements about childhood vaccination and vaccines. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. 2018 Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,014, Weighted.

Strongly Agree with the following statements -Partner

'Vaccination protects

children from serious

diseases


vaccination in Australia is

not high enough


catching diseases in areas that have low

vaccination rates

Getting your child vaccinated is

important because it also protects other


newborn babies


natural defencesystems,

making the immune system

stronger

Children should receive every

vaccination on time

Under 30 years old 37% 25% 38% 41% 39% 37%

Over 30 years old 57% ▲ 36% 47% 58% 48% 51%

Currently in parent’s group 61% ▲ 39% 54% ▲ 61% ▲ 52% 57% ▲

Not currently in parent’s group

43% 28% 36% 46% 39% 38%

First child 44% 33% 40% 47% 43% 43%

Additional child 60% ▲ 34% 51% 60% 49% 53%

NET 51% 33% 45% 53% 45% 48%

Strongly Agree with the following statements -Parent

'Vaccination protects children

from serious

diseases


vaccination

in Australia is not high

enough


catching

diseases in areas that have low

vaccination rates

Getting your child vaccinated

is important

because it also protects other


newborn babies


natural defence

systems, making the

immune system stronger

Children should receive

every vaccination on time

CALD 61% 18% 43% 59% 39% 48%

Non-CALD 67% 34% ▲ 45% 68% 36% 43%

Seen Campaign 69% 35% 51% 69% 50% ▲ 51%


NET 65% 30% 45% 66% 37% 44%



20

Sub-group differences indicates that there is an opportunity to further reach out to CALD parents and pregnant women in particular, who do not appear to be as attuned to the messages in the Campaign.

5.2 TYPOLOGY

Participants were asked to select the statement below that best described their personal perspective on childhood immunisation.

STATEMENT TYPOLOGY

I am strongly in favour of childhood vaccination. I have done a lot of research and have a good understanding of the issues. I am comfortable sharing my views and will try to persuade others to change their opinions of vaccination if they are against it.

STRONG ADVOCATES

I am in favour of childhood vaccination. I have done a bit of research from which I feel well enough informed to be comfortable in my choices. I don’t go out of my way to talk about it but am happy to discuss with others if the topic comes up.

ACTIVE ACCEPTORS

I am in favour of childhood vaccination and see it simply as something you have to do for your children. I don’t tend to think about it much, beyond making the necessary appointments. I trust the healthcare system to do the right thing and don’t feel the need to understand all the details.

PASSIVE ACCEPTORS

I am not against childhood vaccination, but I do worry a bit about things that could potentially go wrong. I haven’t done a lot of research into the subject. I would like to feel reassured that it is okay for my children.

CAUTIOUS CONSIDERERS

I don’t really know where I stand on childhood vaccination. On the one hand, I can see the benefits for my children, but at the same time I worry a lot about the risk of something going wrong. Because of this I like to know all the details of any vaccination that my child receives. Thinking about it makes me feel anxious.

WORRIERS

I do not believe in childhood vaccination. There are far too many risks involved that I believe outweigh the benefits. I do a lot of reading on the subject and am horrified by the personal reports of negative experiences. For these reasons, I tend to warn others against having their children immunised.

CONVINCED WORRIERS

While I sometimes think vaccination is right, I prefer not to over medicalise my children and look for alternative approaches to medicine and wellbeing as far as I can.

NATURALISTS

I am opposed to childhood vaccination and pharmaceutical medicine in general. I try to live a natural life and encourage my children to do the same. We avoid artificial foods and substances and instead use natural remedies.

CONVINCED NATURALISTS

I am strongly opposed to childhood vaccination. It is nothing more than propaganda designed to control the population and only serves the interests of politicians and pharmaceutical companies, not the people. I don’t often share my views with others as they may react badly.

OUTRIGHT REJECTORS

Typology groupings are relatively stable compared to last year, with the vast majority of pregnant women (94%) and parents (91%) falling into the ‘Accepters’ grouping (made up of Strong Advocates, Active Acceptors, and Passive Acceptors). The ‘On the fence’ grouping has also maintained relatively steady levels from 2017. Remarkably, this wave shows that 0% (0.40% to be exact) of parents fall into the ‘Rejecters’ grouping, down from 5% in the Benchmark, and 2% in the 2017 wave. Just 1.5% of pregnant women fall into the Rejecters grouping, down from 2% in 2017.



21

Figure 16: Typology groupings

Q14. You will now be shown a series of statements that describe a personal perspective on childhood vaccination. Please read all of the statements and select the one that most closely describes your personal opinions about childhood vaccination. Benchmark parents n=872, 2017 Parents 0-5 n=1034, 2018 Parents n=1014, 2017 Pregnant n=307, 2018 Pregnant n=610. Weighted. NB: figures for these typology groupings shown to one decimal place to provide further detail on the small proportion of parents and pregnant women falling into the ‘Rejecters’ grouping. All other figures throughout this report are rounded to whole percentages.

Exposure to the campaign is associated with increases in Acceptance status; both the parent and pregnant groups exposed to the Campaign saw (non-significant) increases in the Accepters groupings, as shown in Figure 17 below. While these are not significant differences, it is a positive trend that indicates the Campaign is shifting attitudes about immunisation towards the positive. The difference is most notable for pregnant women; 95% of those who had seen the Campaign are falling into the Accepter grouping, compared to 91% who have not been exposed to the Campaign.

Figure 17: Typology groupings (by exposure to the Campaign)

Q14. You will now be shown a series of statements that describe a personal perspective on childhood vaccination. Please read all of the statements and select the one that most closely describes your personal opinions about childhood vaccination. Benchmark parents n=872, 2017 Parents 0-5 n=1034, 2018 Parents n=1014, 2017 Pregnant n=307, 2018 Pregnant n=610. Weighted.

As shown below in Figure 18, we have seen some movement between the different levels of the ‘Acceptors’ grouping. Both pregnant women and parents have shifted away from being ‘Strong Advocates’ to the ‘Active Acceptors’ segment. A shift to Active Acceptor is associated with lower awareness of any information or advertising around childhood immunisation (unprompted awareness) – but not a negative change in vaccination

PREGNANTPARENT (0-5)

81%

14%

5%

92.8%

5.3%

1.8%

93.6%

6.0%

0.4%

Accepters

On the fence

Rejecters

Benchmark 2017 2018

92.2%

5.9%

2.0%

91.9%

6.6%

1.5%2017 2018

Typology - Pregnant (2018) Accepter On the fence

Rejecter

Seen Campaign 95% 4% 1%

Not Seen Campaign 91% 8% 2%

NET 92% 7% 1%

Typology - Parent (2018) Accepter On the fence

Rejecter

Seen Campaign 95% 5% 0%

Not Seen Campaign 93% 6% 0%

NET 94% 6% 0%



22

behaviour, intentions or overall support. Therefore, this is not seen as a strong negative movement but rather a reduction in the word of mouth amongst these audiences. This could be aligned to lower levels of ‘buzz’ around childhood vaccination this wave as compared to the previous 2017 wave (driven largely by the ‘No Jab, No Pay/Play’ initiatives).

Figure 18: Typology

Q14. You will now be shown a series of statements that describe a personal perspective on childhood vaccination. Please read all of the statements and select the one that most closely describes your personal opinions about childhood vaccination. Benchmark parents n=872, 2017 Parents 0-5 n=1034, 2018 Parents n=1014, 2017 Pregnant n=307, 2018 Pregnant n=610. Weighted. Note: figures less than 2% not shown on scale for visibility reasons.

Partners hold the strongest advocacy levels, with half (51%) of this audience falling into the ‘strong advocates’ segment. The results among partners once again highlight the opportunity of this audience being positive influencers of childhood vaccinations in our society, as they are clearly comfortable publicly expressing their positive views. While a relatively high proportion (3%) of partners fall into the ‘outright rejectors’ segment, the difference to other groups was not significant and evaluation of future waves of the campaign should further assess this finding.

As shown in Figure 19, older (aged 30+) partners in metro areas are the most likely to be Acceptors, with significantly higher levels of rejection for partners aged under 30 (8% Rejector grouping) and living in regional areas (7% Rejector grouping).

3% 3%

24% 23%

29%

41%

39%

27%

Strong advocates

Active acceptors

Passive acceptors

Cautious considerers

Worriers

Natural ists

Convinced worriers

Convinced natural ists

Outright rejecters

3% 3%

29% 29%

32%38%

32%26%

3%

3%

15%

27%

51%


2017 2018 2017 2018 2018



23

Figure 19: Typology – Partner Subgroups

5.3 ATTITUDES TOWARDS CHILDHOOD IMMUNISATION

Positively, both parents and pregnant women are significantly more likely to reject negative statements as compared to last year. Results show a significant rise in the disagreement levels amongst both parents and pregnant women that ‘vaccinations weakens the immune system’, are ‘not necessary’ and general opposition to vaccinations for children.

Figure 20: Disagreement with negative statements (% disagree + strongly disagree)

Q.16 and 17 Below are some beliefs that some parents hold about childhood vaccination and vaccines. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. Base: 2017 Tracking Wave: Parents 0-5 n=1034, Pregnant n=307. 2018 Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1014, Pregnant n=610. Weighted.

Results also show greater agreement with positive attitudes towards childhood immunisation this wave (although not as dramatic as the increase in rejection of negative attitudes).

This is particularly evident within the parents audience, as shown in Figure 21, all but one statement has seen increases in agreement levels among this group.

Typology - Partner Accepter On the fence

Rejecter

Under 30 years old 87% 5% 8% ▲


Metro 93% 6% 1%

Regional 89% 3% 7% ▲

NET 92% 5% 3%

74%

61%

90%

73%

54%

85%

I bel ieve vaccinat ion weakens the immune

system

I bel ieve some vacc inat ions are not

necessary

I oppose vacc inat ion for chi ldren

Parents Pregnant

SIGNIFICANT SHIFTS2017 - 2018

+5% ▲

+15% ▲

+5% ▲

+8% ▲

+8% ▲

+20% ▲



24

Figure 21: Positive Vaccination attitudes - Parents

Q.16 and 17 Below are some beliefs that some parents hold about childhood vaccination and vaccines. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. Base: 2017 Tracking Wave: Parents 0-5 n=1034, 2018 Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1014, Weighted. Note: figures less than 2% not shown on scale for visibility reasons.

Figure 22 shows that parents who have seen the Campaign are more likely to strongly agree with these positive statements. Most notably, parents exposed to the campaign are more likely to agree that ‘vaccinations are safe for children’ (+9%), that ‘vaccinating your child is important to protect unvaccinated children’ (+8%), that it is ‘important to stick to the exact timing of the schedule’ (+9%), and that they have a ‘high level of trust in the government vaccination program’ (+8%). This is a strong result, indicating that overall national shifts in positive attitudes towards childhood vaccination can (at least in part) be attributed to the Campaign.

Figure 22: Positive Vaccination attitudes – Parents (by campaign exposure)

Amongst pregnant women, attitudes towards childhood vaccination remains relatively stable compared to last wave.

+3%

+4%

+4%

-2%

+2%

+1%

71%

66%

52%

46%

41%

31%

24%

28%

38%

26%

46%

51%

3%

4%

6%

15%

9%

13%

2%

8%

2%

4%

5%

I believe vaccination is an effective way ofpreventing serious diseases

I believe vaccination improves the health ofthe whole community

I believe vaccination is safe for children

I believe vaccinating your child is importantto protect unvaccinated children

I have a high level of trust in thegovernment vaccination program

It is extremely important to stick to the exacttiming of the vaccination schedule

Strongly agree Agree Not sure Disagree Strongly disagree

VACCINATION ATTITUDES – PARENTS 2018SHIFT - TOTAL AGREE

2017 - 2018

Strongly Agree with the following statements -Parent

I believe vaccination is

safe for children

'I believe vaccination

improves the health of

the whole

community

'I believe vaccination is

an effective way of

preventing

serious diseases

I believe vaccinating your child is important

to protect unvaccinated

children

It is extremely important to

stick to the exact timing of the vaccination

schedule

I have a high level of trust in the

government vaccination

program

Seen Campaign 58% 69% 75% 53% 38% 47%


NET 52% 66% 71% 46% 31% 41%



25

Figure 23: Positive Vaccination attitudes – Pregnant

Q.16 and 17 Below are some beliefs that some parents hold about childhood vaccination and vaccines. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. Base: 2017 Tracking Wave: Pregnant n=307. 2018 Tracking wave: Pregnant n=610. Weighted. Note: figures less than 2% not shown on scale for visibility reasons.

Several subgroup differences exist in terms of pregnant women’s attitudes towards vaccinations. Pregnant women from CALD backgrounds are less likely to strongly agree that ‘vaccination improves the health of the whole community’ (52% CALD vs 68% non-CALD). Pregnant women in geo-targeted areas are less likely to strongly agree that ‘vaccination is an effective way of preventing serious diseases’ (47%) and that ‘vaccinations improve the health of the whole community’ (47%), consistent with lower levels of vaccination rates in the geo-targeted set.

As with parents, pregnant women who have seen the Campaign have significantly higher agreement with these positive vaccination attitudes.

70%

65%

49%

43%

40%

34%

23%

27%

39%

26%

45%

50%

5%

6%

9%

18%

10%

11%

2%

9%

3%

3%

3%


I believe vaccination improves the health of thewhole community


I believe vaccinating your child is important toprotect unvaccinated children

I have a high level of trust in the governmentvaccination program





26

Figure 24: Positive Vaccination attitudes – Pregnant Subgroups

Partner perceptions generally mirror that of parents and pregnant women. While we see an uplift in agreement levels with Government trust and timings compared to the other audiences, we see reduced levels of positive perceptions amongst partners, particularly when compared to parents of 0-5 year olds.

Figure 25: Positive vaccination attitudes - Partners

Q.16 and 17 Below are some beliefs that some parents hold about childhood vaccination and vaccines. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement. Base: 2017 Tracking Wave: Parents 0-5 n=1034, Pregnant n=307. 2018 Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1014, Partners n=383. Weighted. Note: figures less than 2% not shown on scale for visibility reasons.

Strongly Agree with the following statements -Pregnant


safe for children

'I believe vaccination improves

the health of the whole

community

'I believe vaccination is an effective

way of preventing

serious diseases



children



schedule



program

Attending / planning to attend daycare

52% 67% 71% 47% 38% 46% ▲

Not attending daycare 41% 59% 68% 39% 26% 28%

CALD 39% 52% 56% 38% 31% 36%

Non-CALD 52% 68% ▲ 74% 47% 35% 42%

Seen Campaign 54% 63% 72% 53% 46% ▲ 50%


Not geo-targeted 52% 67% ▲ 74% ▲ 47% 36% 43%

Geo-targeted all 35% 47% 47% 39% 26% 31%

NET 49% 65% 70% 43% 34% 40%

61%

60%

57%

48%

47%

40%

26%

30%

29%

32%

38%

43%

8%

5%

10%

12%

10%

12%

3%

4%

3%

3%

4%

3%

3%

I believe vaccination improves the health of thewhole community



I believe vaccinating your child is important toprotect unvaccinated children

I have a high level of trust in the governmentvaccination program





27

Partners who are expecting their first child are less likely than those who have another child to strongly agree that ‘vaccination is safe for all children’ (49% vs. 66%), indicating that parental experience of vaccination supports confidence in immunisation. In addition, partners over 30 years old are more likely to agree that it is ‘important to stick to the exact timing of the vaccination schedule’.

Figure 26: Positive vaccination attitudes – Partner Subgroups

6. STATED CAMPAIGN IMPACT – ACTIONS TAKEN

Consistent with the previous wave, two in three parents report taking some action after seeing the Campaign. The Campaign continues to act as a reminder for parents, with the most common action taken to check if their child(ren)’s vaccinations are up to date.

Results (Figure 27, below) show indicative decreases across social actions (speaking to family / friends, chatting to people online down), aligning with overall lower ‘buzz’ this wave. Reported website visitation also saw a dip this wave, with parents appearing to be less inclined to seek information from a range of sources.

Strongly Agree with the following statements -Partner


safe for children

'I believe vaccination improves

the health of the whole

community

'I believe vaccination is an effective

way of preventing

serious diseases



children



schedule



program

Under 30 years old 47% 49% 49% 43% 28% 40%

Over 30 years old 60% 65% 64% 49% 44% ▲ 49%

Currently in parent’s group 63% 68% 65% 54% ▲ 52% ▲ 56% ▲

Not currently in parent’s group 51% 54% 56% 41% 29% 37%

First child 49% 55% 54% 43% 37% 43%

Additional child 66% ▲ 68% 68% 52% 44% 51%

NET 57% 61% 60% 48% 40% 47%



28

Figure 27: Actions taken as a result of seeing campaign (Parents)

Source: Q26. What, if any, actions did you take as a result of seeing this ‘Immunisation – Get the Facts’ information campaign? Please select all that apply. Base, tracking wave: Seen at least one element of the campaign: Parent, 2017 n=258, 2018 n=189. Weighted.

Compared with the previous wave, we see a decline in the number of pregnant women taking some action after seeing the Campaign. It is important to note that the Campaign is still highly motivating; 68% of pregnant women reporting they took some action is a strong result relative to other government campaigns.

Driving the overall lower likelihood to take action this wave is that pregnant women are speaking to family or friends about immunisation far less (21% in 2018 vs 41% in 2017).

As seen in the differences in unprompted message take-out, in 2017 the national conversation on childhood immunisation was largely focused on the ‘No Jab No Pay/Play’ initiatives. It appears that this created a ‘buzz’ around childhood immunisation that encouraged community discussion, which has now settled as people have become used to the initiatives.

Took no act ion

Spoke to a GP / hea l thcare p ro fess iona l about immunisat ion

Checked i f my ch i ld ’s / ch i l dren ’s vacc inat ions were up to date

Spoke to f r iends o r fami ly members about immunisat ion

Booked an appo in tment to ge t my chi ld / ch i l dren vaccina ted

Went to the ‘ Immunisa t ion – get the facts ’ websi te for more info rmat ion on immunisat ion

Chatted to peop le on l i ne (e.g . Parents on l ine communi ty )

Looked for more info rmat ion on immunisat ion from another source

Went to the ‘ immunisa t ion – get the facts ’ websi te to hear / watch more persona l stor ies

Researched to see i f I l i ve in an a rea w i th l ow vacc inat ion ra tes

Someth ing el se

Can' t remember

31%

28%

32%

22%

14%

17%

11%

14%

13%

11%

2%

3%

33%

20%

35%

15%

13%

9%

7%

12%

7%

9%

2%

3%

2017

2018



29

Figure 28: Actions taken as a result of seeing campaign (Pregnant)

Source: Q26. What, if any, actions did you take as a result of seeing this ‘Immunisation – Get the Facts’ information campaign? Please select all that apply. Base, tracking wave: Seen at least one element of the campaign: Pregnant women, 2017 n=115, 2018 n=149. Weighted.

As mentioned earlier in this report, partners of pregnant women appear to be highly active and involved in seeking information about childhood vaccination. Four in ten indicate that they have spoken to a healthcare professional, and around two in ten have sought information online.

There is some indication that these reported behaviours (being significantly higher than other groups) may be referencing general actions taken (as opposed to direct result of campaign exposure.

16%

27%

27%

41%

20%

24%

19%

25%

23%

24%

2%

1%

32%

31%

22%

21%

20%

19%

16%

15%

14%

13%

0%

0%

2017

2018

Took no act ion

Spoke to a GP / heal thca re p rofessiona l about immun isa tion

Checked i f my chi ld ’s / chi ldren’s vaccina tions were up to date

Spoke to f r iends or family members about immun isa tion

Booked an appointment to get my ch i ld / chi ld ren vaccinated

Went to the ‘ Immunisat ion – ge t the facts ’ webs ite for more informat ion on immun isa tion

Chatted to people on l ine (e.g. Paren ts onl ine communi ty)

Looked for more informat ion on immun isation from another source

Went to the ‘ immunisat ion – ge t the facts ’ websi te to hear / watch more personal s to r ies

Researched to see i f I l i ve in an area w ith low vacc ination rates

Something e lse

Can' t remember



30

Figure 29: Actions taken as a result of seeing campaign (Partners)

Source: Q26. What, if any, actions did you take as a result of seeing this ‘Immunisation – Get the Facts’ information campaign? Please select all that apply. Base, tracking wave: Seen at least one element of the campaign: Partner, 2018 n=151. Unweighted

The campaign continues to be particularly motivating for those in the geo-targeted postcodes with low immunisation rates. Consistent with the previous wave, those in the geo-targeted areas are significantly more likely (+11 points) to report that they took some action as a result of seeing the campaign (82% in the geo-targeted set saying they took some action, as compared to 71% in the non-targeted postcodes). Those in the geo-targeted areas are more likely to say they spoke to a healthcare practitioner or researched online for more information as a result of seeing the campaign.

Took no act ion

Spoke to a GP / heal thcare p rofessional abou t immunisat ion

Checked i f my chi ld ’s / chi ldren’s vaccinat ions were up to date

Spoke to fr iends or family members abou t immunisat ion

Booked an appointment to get my chi ld / ch i ldren vacc inated

Went to the ‘ immunisat ion – ge t the fac ts ’ webs ite for more informat ion on immunisat ion

Chat ted to people onl ine (e.g. Parents onl ine commun ity)

Looked for more informat ion on immunisat ion f rom another source

Went to the ‘ immunisat ion – ge t the fac ts ’ website to hear / watch more pe rsonal s tor ies

Researched to see i f I l i ve in an area wi th low vaccinat ion rates

Something else (p lease specify)

Can ' t remember

9%

41%

24%

24%

22%

18%

22%

25%

23%

24%

1%

1%



31

Figure 30: Actions taken as a result of seeing campaign (Geo-targeted vs Non-Targeted)

Source: Q26. What, if any, actions did you take as a result of seeing this ‘Immunisation – Get the Facts’ information campaign? Please select all that apply. Base, tracking wave: Seen at least one element of the campaign, Parent, Pregnant and Partner groups combined, Geo-targeted n=76, non-targeted, n=413.

7. CAMPAIGN DIAGNOSTICS

Campaign diagnostics were undertaken on the 45 second video and the 15 second video ‘Protects’. 75% of participants were shown the 45 second video, and 25% of participants were shown the alternate 15 second video (‘Protects’ with Professor Frazer).

As would be expected, the diagnostics (audience response to the videos) was largely consistent with the previous wave, with both videos performing well overall, and the 45 second video providing the stronger emotional connection, with audiences connecting to the stories of the families who had lost their infants to vaccine preventable diseases.

The exception to this is the new partner audience, which unlike parents and pregnant women, have a stronger positive response to the more factual, straightforward 15 second video with Professor Frazer.

45 second video (families) 15 second video (Prof. Frazer)

7.1 MESSAGE TAKE OUT

Overall, message take out is in line with results observed last year, with both the 45 & 15 second videos communicating the message that vaccines protect children and save lives.

Audiences have richer message take-outs from the longer 45 second video; they are more likely to mention a range of messages, including herd immunity, and that 93% of children are vaccinated - but this is not high enough. Viewers of the 15 second video are more likely to take away a simpler message of: ‘go to the website, do your own research’ – potentially indicating a stronger call to action.

Actions taken as a results of seeing campaign - All audiences combined

Took no action

Spoke to healthcare practitioner

Spoke to friends / family

members

Went to the ‘Get the Facts’

website for more

information

Researched to see if I

lived in an area with low vaccination

rates

Geo-targeted 18% 39% 24% 24% 28%

Non-targeted 29% 29% 20% 13% 11%

NET 27% 31% 21% 15% 14%



32

Figure 31: Message take out (open ended: ‘What was the video trying to tell you?’)

SourceQ29. Prompted message take out - what was the video trying to tell you? Base; Total sample, n=2512, weighted

Parents and pregnant women are significantly more likely to mention the role of herd immunity in keeping all children safe (39% and 40% respectively) than the partner audience. Just 9% of first-time expectant dads and 21% of experienced partners mention herd immunity, potentially indicating a lower level of familiarity with this concept, or that the concept of herd immunity has less personal relevance or meaning to this group.

7.2 ELEMENTS STANDING OUT

Participants were asked which elements of the video stood out to them most (new question added for Wave 2), in order to reveal which aspects of the videos were driving connection, relevance and recall. For the 45 second video, the infants who had passed away were the strongest element, with 50% of participants mentioning them specifically. The 15 second video had more general elements standing out – 30% mentioned Professor Fraser, and 17% felt the message of ‘it is important to vaccinate’ stood out.

53%

34%

25%

20%

5%

13%

3%

2%

2%

1%

48%

25%

21%

22%

14%

4%

0%

1%

2%

1%

Vaccines protec t and save l ives

Herd immunity keeps a l l ch i ldren safe

Vacc ines are impor tant

Get your ch i ldren vaccinated

Go on websi te , do research

93% of k ids are vaccinated, not h igh enough

Infants have d ied because of unvaccinated ch i ldren

Make sure your ch i ld ' s vacc ines are up to date

Unsu re

Other45 Sec 15 Sec



33

Figure 32: Source of connection (open ended: ‘What stood out to you most?’)

Source Q29a. What stood out to you most from this video? Base; Total sample, n=2512, weighted.

The personal stories of the bereaved families connected in particular for pregnant women. 82% of pregnant women mention that the infants in the 45 second video stood out to them, and a review of pregnant women’s verbatims reveal a profound emotional connection with the families who lost their babies to vaccine preventable diseases. The idea of losing a newborn - particularly due to something that could have been prevented - is incredibly tragic and really hits home with expectant mums. This audience holds a deep emotional resonance and anxiety around the idea of losing a child.

“[What stood out most was] the loss of a child unnecessarily. Being 6 months

pregnant that is a big concern of mine. I understand everyone’s rights but it’s

sad to think something so horrible could be so easily prevented and it may not

even be because of your choice but another’s.” (Pregnant woman)

This is consistent with emotion coding results from the first wave; engagement spiked for pregnant women in particular while the families and infants were on-screen.

Partners of pregnant women were significantly less likely than other audiences to mention the babies standing out to them from the 45 second video (30% mentioned).

7.3 DIAGNOSTICS: RESPONSE TO VIDEOS

Consistent with the previous wave, both videos perform well, with the majority of participants finding them to be clear, believable, trustworthy, and balanced.

50%

39%

27%

21%

9%

8%

5%

4%

2%

1%

7%

7%

7%

30%

1%

14%

3%

5%

0%

8%

17%

5%

13%

8%

Infants , babies, ch i ldren

People speak ing / emot ional impact

Not vacc ina t ing r i sk s death of babies

Vacc ines protect and save l i ves

93%, need to increase vaccinat ion rate

Need to increase herd immuni ty

Protect ing against whooping cough

Vacc ines are good / safe

Impor tant to vacc inate

Do research / get fac ts

Noth ing

Other 45 sec 15 sec



34

Parents and pregnant women are connecting with the 45 second version in particular, finding it to be highly relevant, informative & trustworthy. These audiences rated the 45 second version significantly higher on almost all diagnostic measures, indicating the longer, more emotional personal narratives are key to connecting parents and pregnant women to the information about immunisation.

Figure 33: Video diagnostics – Pregnant & Parents (% strongly agree)

By contrast, partners have a (slightly) stronger connection to the 15 second ‘Protects’ video - finding it to be just as relevant and informative, and slightly more unique. This aligns to the male parents in Wave 1 having a stronger connection to fact-based material.

54%

56%

46 %

46%

33%

19%

21 %

5%

…

57%

58%

50%

44%

31%

20%

19%

4%

PREGNANT PARENTS

45 sec

15 sec

The information was clear and easy to understand

The messages in this video align with my own beliefs about childhood vaccination

The people in the video were believable

The information was trustworthy

The information was balanced

This video was different to other ads I’ve seen from the Australian government

I learned something new from watching this video

This video was not relevant to me



35

Figure 34: Video diagnostics - Partners (% strongly agree)

Q30. Campaign diagnostics. Base: Partner shown 45 second video n=285, Partner shown 15 second video n=98

Consistent with the previous wave, parents and pregnant women report feeling significantly more informed about their future decisions regarding childhood vaccination as a result of exposure to the 45 second video, over the 15 second video (Figure 34, below). After watching the 45 second video, 56% of parents and 60% of pregnant women reported feeling more informed, compared to 35% and 42% for the 15 second video.

Interestingly, partners feel just as informed by both versions. This aligns with an overall more positive response to the 15 second version, indicating expectant dads are connecting to the straightforward, factual information offered by Professor Fraser.

47%

42%

38%

42%

35%

34%

29%

16%

The in format ion was c lear and easy to unders tand

The messages in thi s v ideo al ign w i th my own bel ie fs …

The people in the video were be l ievable

The i nfo rmat ion was t rus tworthy

The i nfo rmat ion was ba lanced

Th is v ideo was di f fe ren t to o ther ads I ’ve seen f rom …

I l earned someth ing new f rom watch ing th i s v ideo

Th is v ideo was not relevan t to me

PARTNER

45 sec

15 sec



36

Figure 35: Impact of video on feelings about vaccination decisions

Source: ‘Q31.Has watching this video had any impact on how you feel about your decisions regarding childhood immunisation? 15 sec base Parent n=249, Pregnant n=155, Partner n=98. 45 sec base Parent n=765, Pregnant n=455, Partner n=285. Weighted.

8. DEEP DIVE ON AUDIENCES

8.1 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: STRONG ADVOCATES

An analysis of how Strong Advocates view the overall rate of childhood vaccination in Australia reveals that their strong viewpoints appear to be driven by the comfort of social norms, or a sense of high urgency. The chart below (Figure 36) visualises the variety of drivers that can exists even within the same typology.

Those who assume a lower proportion of children in Australia are fully immunised (40% or lower), are more likely to fall into the Strong Advocates typology. This group, who we have labelled ‘Fighters’ appear to be driven to advocacy by a sense of urgency, perhaps viewing the situation of childhood immunisation in Australia as more drastic or negative than it actually is, and therefore feeling the need to encourage people around them to immunise their children.

At the other end of the scale, those who think a very high proportion of children in Australia are fully immunised (91 – 100%), are also more likely to fall into the Strong Advocates typology. This group, who we have labelled ‘Conformists’ appear to see

17%25%

25%

35%

57%

37%

1% 0%

I feel much moreinformed

I feel slightly moreinformed

No change

I feel slightly moreconfused

I feel much moreconfused

Don't know / doesnot apply to me

12%19%

23%

37%

62%

42%

31%39%

42%

36%

26% 23%

PARENT PREGNANT PARTNER

15 sec 45 sec 15 sec 45 sec 15 sec 45 sec



37

acceptance of childhood vaccination as a well-established social norm, and are therefore more comfortable freely expressing their views.

Figure 36: Perceived proportion of children fully vaccinated by typology

Q14. You will now be shown a series of statements that describe a personal perspective on childhood vaccination. Please read all of the statements and select the one that most closely describes your personal opinions about childhood vaccination. Q15. What percentage of children do you think are fully vaccinated in Australia? 2017 Parents 0-5 n=1034, 2018 Parents n=1014, 2017 Pregnant n=307, 2018 Pregnant n=610 2018 Partners n=383. Weighted.

This reveals that there are a range of levers that could potentially be driving people into the Strong Advocates typology. The first being a sense of urgency (e.g. ‘not enough children are immunised’, ‘Unvaccinated children put other babies at risk who are too young to be immunised’), which is likely to be effective at driving Passive and Active Acceptors into the ‘Fighter’ Strong Advocates group. The second is the social norm principle; the campaign establishing that the vast majority of parents choose to immunise their children (93% are immunised), allows those with positive views to feel more comfortable expressing their views to others. In further iterations of the Campaign, the urgency message could be particularly effective if used in targeted communications to areas of low immunisation rates (e.g. ‘Not enough children are immunised in your area’, ‘Did you know your area has a low vaccination rate?’). On the other hand, the social norm message could be effective if targeted to first time expectant parents, to establish to those who may not have made decisions yet about childhood vaccination, what the vast majority of other parents are doing.

40% and under 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100%

Strong advocates

Active acceptors

Passive acceptors

FIGHTERS CONFORMISTS

% OF AUSTRALIAN CHILDREN THOUGHT TO BE FULLY VACCINATED

TY

PO

LO

GY

47%

26%

16%

45%

27%

20%



38

8.2 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: NON-SUPPORTERS

An analysis of those who are neutral or opposed to childhood immunisation shows that ‘non-supporters’ are often conflicted, and that outright rejection of all vaccines is very rare.

The majority of ‘non-supporters’ (53%) do agree that vaccines are effective at preventing diseases, their concern lies in the number of vaccines given to babies in their first years of life. The majority believe that ‘some vaccinations are not necessary’ and 69% do not agree that it is important to stick to the exact timing of the schedule.

While this audience is likely difficult to reach (they are more likely to be mistrustful of the messaging in the videos), focusing on messaging relating to the safety of the number or frequency of vaccines on the schedule would be addressing the crux of hesitation for many in this group.

Analysis of the open-ended responses reveal that even among rejecters who are quite negative about the NIP, the personal narratives from the families are still cutting through.

[What stood out in the 45 second video was:] “Those poor angel babies no-one

should lose a child, but the government shouldn't use them as lab rats either”

(Rejecter)

By presenting the message of the importance of childhood vaccination to protect other children via personal stories, the Campaign is effectively utilising the well-established behavioural science principle that narratives are often immune to the selective skepticism driven by confirmation bias. In essence, people who are distrustful and are negative about immunisation can easily discount statistics as ‘government propaganda’, but it is far more difficult to discount or dismiss someone’s personal story – especially when the people are seen to be genuine, not actors (as the families in the Campaign are).

We would recommend continuing to target rejecters with communications that include the personal stories of the families who have lost their infants to vaccine-preventable diseases, as this represents the strongest opportunity to reach people who are skeptical of pro-immunisation messaging from the government.

8.3 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: FIRST TIME MUMS

First-time expectant mums are information seekers; they are actively looking for and highly attuned to messages relating to childhood vaccinations.

First time mums are more attuned to the details in advertising or information relating to childhood vaccination (24% recalling information about specific diseases from unprompted message take-out, as compared to 16% of those with other children) and are more likely to take action as a result of exposure to the Campaign (77% took some action vs 65% of experienced mums).

While there are no significant differences in overall support of vaccination between first time and experienced mums, this group does tend to be more hesitant about their views. First time expectant mums are more likely than experienced mums to say they ‘agree’ rather than ‘strongly agree’ with statements about the safety and importance of vaccinations. This may indicate that expectant mums simply need to go through the process first-hand before they can feel completely confident in their views on childhood vaccination.



39

The information seeking nature of this segment indicates the need to be clear on providing them support and clear direction for where they can go to ensure the information they are seeking is attained.

8.4 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: PARTNERS OF PREGNANT WOMEN

Partners are another audience that are highly attuned to messaging relating to childhood vaccinations.

They are also significantly more likely to be strong advocates - over half (51%) fall into the strongest typology - indicating a high level of comfort discussing their positive views towards this topic.

This proves to be important seeing that 78% will be jointly responsible with their pregnant partner for decisions relating to their future children’s vaccinations, and a further 9% will be mainly responsible.

Partners also represent an opportunity as they are highly self-directed, they are likely to seek out information independently - most likely of any group to seek information from other sources (26%).

This group had the strongest response to the 15 second video - indicating a greater connection to straightforward, factual presentation of information, and a self-directed call to action of ‘go to the website to do your own research’.

We would recommend continuing to use the shorter 15 second video, as the factual information presented in the shorter TVC is cutting through with this group and aligns with their need to seek out information independently.

8.5 UNDERSTANDING IMPACT OF GEO-TARGETING STRATEGY

As discussed throughout this report, the Department targeted the Campaign to areas of low immunisation rates, and the methodology for this study included a booster sample of n=263 participants in these identified geo-targeted postcodes in order to measure the effectiveness of the Campaign’s geo-targeting strategy. Taking together both overall prompted awareness of the Campaign and the proportion who have seen any element reveals that the targeting strategy has been effective for pregnant women and parents, but has not had an impact on awareness among the partner audience.

Overall, the geo-targeting strategy is clearly effective at driving greater awareness of the Campaign where it is most needed – in areas of low vaccination rates. We would recommend continuing the geo-targeting strategy for future waves of the campaign, as it is successfully driving higher awareness among parents and pregnant women living in areas of low vaccination rates.

As discussed in the stated impact section of this report, those in the geo-targeted areas are significantly more likely (+11 points) to report that they took some action as a result of seeing the campaign (82% in the geo-targeted set saying they took some action, as compared to 71% in the non-targeted postcodes). Those in the geo-targeted areas are more likely to say they spoke to a healthcare practitioner or researched online for more information as a result of seeing the campaign.



40

Figure 37: Summary of impact of geo-targeting

8.6 UNDERSTANDING KEY AUDIENCE: PEOPLE IN AREAS OF HIGH REJECTION / CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

Separate to the Campaign’s geo-targeting, the Department also has a focus on providing educational resources and programs in pockets of high rejection and reported conscientious objection to childhood immunisation.

There are two sets of SA3s that the Department identified are of interest: areas identified as having the highest levels of rejection and reported conscientious objection, and ‘borderline’ areas, which have had at least one suburb flagged as having a high level of rejection, and moderately high levels of conscientious objection. These postcodes all fall within the geo-targeted postcodes for the Campaign’s targeting strategy, but not all postcodes that were targeted as areas of lower immunisation rates are included within the ‘High rejection’ and ‘Borderline’ set (i.e. these SA3s represent a sub-set of the Campaign geo-targeted areas).

‘High rejection’ SA3s provided by the Department:

Adelaide Hills, SA

Richmond Valley Hinterland, NSW

Richmond Valley Coastal, NSW




NET 21% 30% 12%

Seen campaign through any source Pregnant Partner Parent



NET 29% 42% 21%

Actions taken as a results of seeing campaign - All audiences combined

Took no action

Spoke to healthcare practitioner

Spoke to friends / family

members

Went to the ‘Get the Facts’

website for more

information

Researched to see if I

lived in an area with low vaccination

rates

Geo-targeted 18% 39% 24% 24% 28%

Non-targeted 29% 29% 20% 13% 11%

NET 27% 31% 21% 15% 14%



41

Tablelands (East) – Kuranda, QLD

Sunshine Coast Hinterland, QLD

Nambour – Pamona, QLD

Gold Coast – Hinterland, QLD

Huon – Bruny Island, TAS

Mundaring, WA

‘Borderline’ SA3s provided by the Department:

Manly, NSW

Pittwater, NSW

Maroochydore, QLD

These specified areas were not specifically targeted for this evaluation study (natural fall-out within the geo-targeted set) but were identified as a focus for the Department during the reporting stage of this evaluation study. As the sample size did not allow for a separate comparison of the ‘Borderline’ SA3s comparison of the ‘high rejection’ postcodes against the ‘borderline’ postcodes, these two sets have been combined (n=60, labelled as ‘Geo-targeted specified’) for analysis against other geo-targeted postcodes. The table below outlines the sample group names and how they relate to each other, each set defined as:

‘Geo-targeted all’: All postcodes used for targeting the Campaign, which were also targeted for the survey, n=263

‘Geo-targeted specified’: A combination of the ‘High rejection’ and ‘Borderline’ SA3s identified as a focus by the Department for analysis, which represent a sub-set of the overall geo-targeted postcodes.

‘Geo-targeted general’: All remaining postcodes within the geo-targeted set, which were not identified for analysis as ‘High rejection’ or ‘Borderline’ SA3s.

As there is an identified need to compare the ‘High rejection’ and ‘Borderline’ areas in order to evaluate the Department’s selection process (i.e. should the ‘Borderline’ areas be

‘Geo-targeted specified’n=60

High rejection

Postcodes

Borderlinepostcodes

‘Geo-targeted general’n=203

‘Geo-targeted all’n=263



42

re-classified as ‘High rejection’?), we would recommend including a booster sample targeting these specified SA3s in the next evaluation wave.

Below is an overview of how the ‘Geo-targeted specified’ set compares to the ‘Geo-targeted general’ set on key measures. This has been reported at a combined level for all participants (i.e. not split out by pregnant women, partners and parents), due to the low overall sample size making these splits too unreliable.

As shown in Figure 38 below, people in the ‘Geo-targeted specified’ areas (combination of high rejection and borderline SA3s) have lower self-reported levels of immunisation (88% currently up to date), as compared to the ‘Geo-targeted general’ areas (92% currently up to date).

Further, future intent to vaccinate is also lower in the ‘Geo-targeted specified’ areas (77% report it is ‘very likely’ their children will have had all the vaccinations on the schedule by the time they are 5, as compared to 82% in the ‘Geo-targeted general’ areas).

This confirms the Department’s other sources of information that these areas represent pockets of higher rejection.

Figure 38: Vaccination behaviour & intent – specified vs. general geo-targeted postcodes

Source: Q12. Have your children been immunised? Q13. How likely are your children to have had all the vaccinations on the schedule before they are five? 2018 Geo-targeted specified n=60, 2018 Geo-targeted general n=203.

As shown in Figure 39 below, people in the ‘Geo-targeted specified’ areas have lower levels of awareness of the campaign (15% overall prompted awareness and 23% seen through any source) as compared to people in the ‘Geo-targeted general’ areas (24% overall prompted awareness and 32% seen through any source).

This could be due to confirmation bias; those who are less supportive of childhood vaccinations would be looking for information that confirms their negative views, and dismissing information and advertising that is clearly communicating a pro-vaccination stance. Higher frequency of campaign exposure may be required to bring these pockets of low vaccination rates up to the levels of awareness seen in other areas.

Figure 39: Awareness of campaign – specified vs. general geo-targeted postcodes

Source: Q21, Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Q22, Q22B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on websites. Have you seen this ad (or any other similar ads from this campaign) online lately? Q28. Have you seen this video before today? 2018 Geo-targeted specified n=60, 2018 Geo-targeted general n=203.

Specified vs general geo-targeted postcodes Geo-targeted specified

Geo-targeted general

Behaviour: Currently up to date with schedule 88% 92%

Future intent: Very likely to have all vaccinations on schedule by time children are 5

77% 82%

Specified vs general geo-targeted postcodes Geo-targeted specified

Geo-targeted general

Prompted awareness 15% 24%

Seen through any source 23% 32%



43

9. MATERNAL VACCINATIONS & NIP AWARENESS

Additional measures were included in Wave 2 to cover uptake of maternal vaccinations (whooping cough and flu), and awareness of the National Immunisation Program (NIP) schedule. Results are covered in the below sections.

9.1 VACCINATIONS WHILE PREGNANT: WHOOPING COUGH

The majority (88%) of pregnant women either already have or are planning to have the whooping cough vaccine during their pregnancy.

Results below show that awareness of the whooping cough vaccine is high amongst pregnant women, with very few indicating that they did not know the vaccine was recommended and free for pregnant women (6%). Amongst the low proportion of women who would not consider the vaccine for themselves or are not sure (6%), the primary barriers focus on the perceived dangers and harm that the vaccine could have to themselves and their unborn baby. There is a strong correlation between rejecters of childhood vaccines and of the adult whooping cough vaccine during pregnancy.

Figure 40: Whooping Cough vaccine uptake

Source: 'Q34. Have you, or are you planning to, have the free whooping cough vaccine while you are pregnant? Q35. Which – if any - of the following statements apply to why you are not planning on getting the whooping cough vaccine while you are pregnant? Base; Pregnant, n=606, weighted.

9.2 VACCINATIONS WHILE PREGNANT: INFLUENZA VACCINE

The majority of pregnant women either already have or are planning to have the influenza vaccine (75%) during their pregnancy. While the majority of pregnant women are open to the influenza vaccine, one in four (25%) are either unsure or do not plan to have it.

The primary barrier to uptake of the influenza vaccine while pregnant is a general lack of use or trust in influenza vaccines. Of the 15% of pregnant women who would not consider it, 55% say they never get the influenza vaccine - regardless if they are pregnant or not.

5%

6%

44%

44%

Yes, have had the whooping cough vacc ine during my pregnancy

Yes, I plan to have the whooping cough vaccine during my pregnancy

Did not know the whooping cough vacc ine was recommended and f ree for pregnant women, but wil l consider it

No, have not had the whooping cough vacc ine and do not p lan to

Not sure

“I support the well established

vaccines, but this has not

been tested on pregnant

women, we don’t know what

the potential impacts could

be” (Pregnant woman)



44

There are also concerns about effectiveness among this group; 31% believe that the influenza vaccine is not effective at preventing influenza, and 15% say they believe it can cause influenza.

Figure 41: Influenza vaccine uptake

Source: Q32. Have you, or are you planning to, have the free flu vaccine while you are pregnant? Q33. Which – if any - of the following statements apply to why you are not planning on getting the flu shot while you are pregnant? Base; Pregnant, n=606, weighted.

9.3 AWARENESS OF THE NATIONAL IMMUNISATION PROGRAM (NIP)

Familiarity with the NIP schedule is high, with approximately nine in ten pregnant women, partners and parents indicating that they are very or somewhat familiar with the program. Healthcare professionals are the first source of contact for all key audiences, followed by Government resources such as websites and hotlines.

3%

12%

10%

44%

31%

Yes, have had the f lu vacc ine dur ing my pregnancy

Yes, I p lan to have the f lu vaccine dur ing my pregnancy

Did not know the f lu vacc ine was recommended and f ree for pregnant women, but wi l l consider i tNo, have not had the f lu vaccine and do not plan to

Not sure

“I’ve heard of people

getting sick after

getting the flu shot. I

don’t want to be under

the weather while I’m

pregnant”



45

Figure 42: Familiarity with NIP schedule

Source: Q13a. How familiar are you with the National Immunisation Program Schedule – in terms of what vaccinations your child needs and when? Base: Total sample, n=2,062, unweighted

Figure 43: Sources of information about NIP

Source: Q13b. If you needed it, where would you get information about the National Immunisation Program Schedule? Base: Total sample, n=2,062, unweighted.

46% 49% 46%

43%46%

41%

6%

4%

8%

Pregnant Paren t Partner

Very fami l i ar

Somewhat fami l i ar

Somewhat un fami l iar

No t a t al l fami l i ar

74%

43%

40%

39%

27%

13%

6%

74%

43%

50%

37%

22%

12%

4%

56%

44%

43%

41%

25%

23%

11%

Direct ly from my GP / paediatr ician / healthcare

profess ional

Government website

myGov / Medicare onl ine account

Google search

Cal l the Austra l ian Immunisat ion Register

enquir ies l i ne

Advice from a fr iend or family member

Non-government website

Pregnant

Parent

Partner



46

Several significant differences between sub-groups on these measures exist. Pregnant women who are already part of a parent’s group are more likely to be aware of the NIP compared to those who are not currently part of a parent’s group (57% and 41% respectively). The same is true for parents of children aged under the age of 5 years old (54% currently part of a parent’s group compared to 46% amongst those not currently part of a parent’s group). Younger parents (under 20 years of age) are likely to be using Google to assist them in finding information about the NIP (45%), while females more likely to be speaking with their GP (75%) and males more likely to be utilising Government websites (49%).

10. WEBSITE POP-UP SURVEY

As a supplement to the Campaign evaluation, a short pop-up exit survey was conducted on the Campaign website.

The pop-up survey was live on the Campaign website from March 7 – May 4 2018. The pop-up received 7,309 impressions and 457 click-throughs, resulting in n=323 completed surveys. The click through rate of 6.3% is within the expected range of 5-8% for pop-ups.

The survey captured:

Purpose of visit

Support of childhood vaccination

Response to information on the website

Impact on feelings about future decisions regarding childhood immunisation

10.1 REASON FOR VISITATION & VISITOR STATUS

The results revealed that during the period the exit survey was live, website visitors tended to be strong supporters of childhood immunisation, who were looking for general information about childhood vaccination. This remains consistent with findings from Phase 1.



47

Figure 44: Reason for website visit (Looking for information…)

Source: Q2. What brought you to this website today? Base: Wave 1 n=78, Wave 2 n=323

The data above shows that the most common reasons for website visitation was to look for information about childhood immunisation generally (32% of visitors reported) and for information about a specific vaccine (20%). Immunisation safety (19%) and the benefits of immunisation (16%) were also popular responses for website visitation.

Website visitors had higher levels of overall support for childhood immunisation as compared to the populations included in the main study (parents of children aged 0-5 and pregnant women). Approximately nine in ten (89%) of website visitors reported they strongly support or support childhood vaccination, and no website visitors reported they opposed or strongly oppose childhood vaccination.

1%

4%

8%

6%

15%

6%

19%

14%

20%

16%

32%

5%

6%

10%

11%

12%

14%

19%

26%

26%

28%

50%

about where I can get my childvaccinated

about helping me decide whether tovaccinate my child

resources to show to someone else

about personal stories regardingfamilies affected by childhood diseases

school assignment

about when to vaccinate my child

about safety of immunisation

about vaccine preventable diseases

about a specific vaccine

about the benefits of immunisation

about childhood immunisation generally

Wave 1 2017(n=78)

Wave 2 2018(n=323)



48

Figure 45: Vaccination support

Source: Q3. How do you feel about childhood vaccination? Base: Wave 1 n=78, Wave 2 n=323

10.2 VISITOR RESPONSE TO WEBSITE & IMPACT

Overall, website visitors’ response to the information on the site was positive; the information was largely agreed to be helpful, factual and balanced.

Figure 46: Visitor response to website (% agree + strongly agree)

Source: Q4. Thinking about the information on the website, how much do you agree that… Base: Wave 1 n=78, Wave 2 n=323

Results above shows that 69% of website visitors agreed or strongly agreed that the information on the website was helpful, 69% agreed or strongly agreed that the information was factual, and 61% agreed or strongly agreed that the information was balanced. Although a slight decline compared to last year, results are not significantly different between waves.

Just under half (48%) of all of those who visited the website indicated that they were able to find all the information that they were looking for. A third of visitors (29%) were not able to find all the information they were looking for, and a further 24% were either neutral or indicated this did not apply to them.

10%

9%

81%

80%

2017

2018

Support Strongly support

69%

69%

61%

48%

77%

74%

72%

54%

The information was helpful

The information was factual

The information was balanced

I was able to find all the information Iwas looking for

Wave 1 2017(n=78)

Wave 2 2018(n=323)



49

A breakdown of visitors who were not able to find all the information they were looking for and those who did not find the information to be balanced is below.

Figure 47: Impact of visit to website

Source: Q5. Has this website had any impact on how you feel about decisions regarding childhood immunisation? Base: Wave 1 n=78, Wave 2 n=323

The website itself is having a positive impact for one-third (34%) of visitors, with these people feeling more confident and informed about their future decisions regarding childhood immunisation. Half (50%) of website visitors reported the website had no impact, and very few website visitors (4%) felt more conflicted or confused after their visit. The visitors who reported their visit had no impact tended to be strong supporters of childhood immunisation – indicating that there was no opportunity to further shift already positive attitudes.

10.3 VISITORS WHO WERE UNABLE TO FIND INFORMATION

In response to the finding in Phase 1 that not all website visitors were able to find the information they were looking for, additional information (about specific vaccines, etc.) was added to the Campaign website before the launch of Wave 2 of the Campaign run. However, the survey results showed that a similar number of visitors in Wave 2 unable to find all the information they were looking for.

Isolating this sample (n=93) who indicated they ‘disagreed or strongly disagreed’ with the statement ‘I was able to find everything I was looking for’ reveals that the majority were looking for information not included on the codeframe, with 60% selecting ‘other’. Most commonly, people who could not find the information they were looking for were looking for information on availability of the influenza vaccine for children under 5:

“Was looking for when the flu vaccine will be available in Melbourne.”

Others were looking to find out if they lived in areas of low immunisation rates:

11%

1%

3%

50%

14%

20%

15%

47%

10%

27%

Don’t know / does not apply to me

I feel much more conflicted / confused

I feel slightly more conf licted / confused

No change

I feel slightly more conf ident / informed

I feel much more confident / informed

Wave 1 2017(n=78)

Wave 2 2018(n=323)



50

“I wanted to know which areas have the lowest rates and why, and what the rate is for where I live”

Another request for information resources was ‘ammo’ to use in convincing someone who is not supportive of childhood vaccinations:

“Looking for information I can provide my ex partner who is trying to stop me from vaccinating our children”

Those who were not able to find all the information they were looking for on the website were also significantly less supportive of childhood vaccinations (71% strongly support vs. 80% overall), indicating at least some of these visitors (est. 10%) were not able to find all the information they were looking for because they were looking for information that supported their negative views on childhood immunisation.

We would suggest continuing to expand on the resources available on the Campaign website, as the key audiences are highly likely to seek to educate themselves. In particular, visitors are seeking highly specific location-based information (e.g. when vaccines available in area, where to go for immunisation in my area, what is the rate of vaccination in my area). A guide on how to approach a conversation with a family member who is not supportive of vaccination would also be helpful to some.

10.4 VISITORS WHO FEEL INFORMATION NOT ‘BALANCED’

As the term ‘balanced’ can be quite subjective, further analysis was conducted on the sample (n=43) who disagreed that the information on the campaign website was balanced.

Those who felt the information on the website was not balanced are also significantly more likely to be non-supporters of childhood vaccination (33% oppose or are neutral). This viewpoint is highly correlated with disagreement with the statement ‘the information was factual’ (86% of those who feel the information is not balanced also feel it is not factual).

It appears that audiences are using ‘balanced information’ as a proxy for ‘information I agree with’.



51

11. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The Campaign is performing well - successfully driving positive attitudes and behaviours relating to childhood immunisation.

Continue the Campaign approach as the evaluation has shown positive trends nationally on immunisation behavior and intentions.

While overall awareness is relatively steady, awareness of specific campaign elements has dropped from the previous wave.

Consider a higher push to increase awareness of the Campaign.

Awareness of the campaign is higher in the geo-targeted areas among parents and pregnant women, than in non-targeted areas. Geo-targeting has also been shown to be effective in encouraging action as a result of seeing the campaign (82% in the geo-targeted set saying they took some action, as compared with 71% in the non-targeted postcodes). Overall, the geo-targeting strategy is clearly effective at driving greater awareness and action where it is most needed – in areas of low vaccination rates.

Continue the geo-targeting strategy for future waves of the campaign, as it is successfully driving higher awareness and action among parents and pregnant women.

Among ‘non-supporter’ audiences, outright rejection of all vaccinations is quite rare - most commonly, these people are more concerned about the number / frequency of vaccines on the schedule for babies.

Focus on messaging relating to the safety of the number or frequency of vaccines on the schedule would address the crux of hesitation for many in this group.

All audiences (pregnant women in particular) are really connecting with the personal stories of the families who lost infants to vaccine preventable diseases - it is the strongest aspect and emotional core of the campaign.

Continue to focus on the personal stories moving forward - the personal narratives are driving rich message take out and high perceptions of relevance and credibility of the campaign.

Partners of pregnant women are highly attuned to information and involved with the decision process, and also tend towards high levels of advocacy.

Continue the use of highly factual information for partners who are likely to seek out information (e.g. Prof Frazer video).



52

APPENDIX

A1. PHASE 2 SAMPLE BREAKDOWN

Primary Audience:

Parents of Children aged 0-5 Sample size (n=)

Total Parents of children aged 0-5 n=1,014

Location Nationally representative spread of states, territories, metro & regional

n=896

Postcodes within geo-targeted set (booster sample)* n= 108

Gender Mothers n=648

Fathers n=356

CALD CALD n=218

Non-CALD n=781

ATSI ATSI n=23

Non-ASTI n=979

Age of parent

18-24 n=26

25-29 n=153

30-34 n=337

35-39 n=284

40-44 n=155

45-49 n=40

50+ n=9

Primary Audience:

Pregnant women Sample size (n=)

Total Pregnant women n=610


n=525

Postcodes within geo-targeted set (booster sample)* n=81

Age of expectant mother

18 - 24 n=53

25 - 29 n=168

30 - 34 n=218

35 – 39 n=133

40+ n=34

Pregnant with…

First child n=297

Not first child n=309



53

Primary Audience:

Partners of Pregnant Women Sample size (n=)

Total Partners of Pregnant Women n=383


n=306

Postcodes within geo-targeted set (booster sample)* n=72

Age

Under 24 n=27

25 - 29 n=73

30 - 34 n=128

35 – 39 n=110

40 – 49 n=34

50+ n=6

Partner pregnant with…

First child n=206

Not first child n=172



54

A2. STIMULUS

The following stimuli were presented to participants in the 15 minute survey to determine prompted awareness of the Campaign and specific Campaign elements, as well as diagnostics measures on the video content.

‘Hero’ Campaign images

The ‘hero’ Campaign images were used to ask overall awareness of the Campaign at Q19. Shown to 100% of participants.

Facebook Ads (carousels)

The two Facebook carousels were shown to participants at Q21 to measure awareness of Facebook ads. Shown to 100% of participants.



55

Facebook Posts (video links)

The five Facebook post images were shown to participants at Q21B to measure awareness of Facebook posts. Shown to 100% of participants.

Digital Ads

Two static digital ads ‘93%’ and ‘Protects’ were each shown to 50% of participants at Q21B to measure awareness of online ads.

45 second video

The 45 second video was shown to 75% of participants. This video was chosen as the focus of the diagnostic testing as it contains the content and messaging of the four other shorter versions of the video. Storyboard of the 45 second video below for reference.



56

15 second video ‘Protects’

The 15 second ‘Protects’ video was shown to 25% of participants. This video was chosen as a secondary focus for the diagnostic testing as it focuses solely on Professor Ian Frazer, and allows for a comparison against the version which focuses on the personal stories of the families. Storyboard of the 15 second ‘Protects’ video below for reference.

Documents

CHILDHOOD IMMUNISATION EDUCATION CAMPAIGN · evaluation suggest creative materials providing fact-based information (e.g. the 15 second video) are likely to be most effective for