Childhood Immunisation Education Campaign Evaluation · Web viewQuantitative Research Report. Prepared for: Department of Health. ... This shift from passive to active support indicates

CHILDHOOD IMMUNISATION EDUCATION CAMPAIGN EVALUATIONQuantitative Research Report

Prepared for: Department of HealthPrepared by: Dianne Gardiner, Shae Ffrench and Adam FranksReference ID: HEALTH/17-18/03437Bastion Latitude Reference: 18-021October 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 2. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 1 2.1 BACKGROUND 12.2 CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES 12.3 RESEARCH REQUIREMENT & OBJECTIVES 23. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3 3.1 METHODOLOGY: ONLINE SURVEY 33.2 METHODOLOGY: WEBSITE EXIT SURVEY COMPONENT 44. CAMPAIGN AWARENESS 5 4.1 UNPROMPTED AWARENESS 54.2 PROMPTED AWARENESS 85. CAMPAIGN IMPACT 20 5.1 DIRECT OR STATED CAMPAIGN IMPACT 205.2 CAMPAIGN IMPACT – COMPARISON TO BENCHMARK FIGURES 246. CAMPAIGN DIAGNOSTICS 32 6.1 MESSAGE TAKE OUT 326.2 DIAGNOSTICS 346.3 STATED IMPACT OF VIDEOS 377. WEBSITE EXIT SURVEY 38 7.1 RESULTS 388. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41 9. APPENDIX A: SAMPLE PROFILE 42 10. APPENDIX B: STIMULUS 44 ‘HERO’ CAMPAIGN IMAGES 44FACEBOOK ADS (CAROUSELS) 44FACEBOOK POSTS (VIDEO LINKS) 44DIGITAL ADS 4545 SECOND VIDEO 4615 SECOND VIDEO ‘PROTECTS’ 47

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Department of Health’s (the department) ‘Get the facts about immunisation education campaign’ (the Campaign), a quantitative tracking study was conducted in September 2017. This involved a 15-minute online survey with a total of n=1,341 key audiences for the Campaign, including n=1,034 parents of children aged 0-5, and n=307 pregnant women. The evaluation research also included a short pop-up web survey on the Campaign website to add richness to the click-through data.Overall, the Campaign is performing well against the communication objectives.The Campaign has high levels of awareness among the target audiences. A quarter (25%) of parents of children aged 0-5, and over a third (37%) of pregnant women have seen at least one aspect of the Campaign. This high rate of prompted awareness is a strong result for the Campaign, indicating that the communication strategy is working well overall.There is no indication of over-exposure or fatigue with the Campaign; the majority of participants (53%) have only seen the Campaign once or twice, and a strong majority (84%) report they would be happy to see the Campaign again.The Campaign appears to be highly motivating; 66% of parents and 83% of pregnant women stated they took some action after seeing it, most commonly to check to see if their child’s vaccinations were up to date, or to speak to someone about childhood immunisation.Overall, the Campaign is showing signs of having a strong, positive effect on key benchmark figures relating to perceptions, attitudes, and intended behaviours relating to childhood immunisation.While overall support for childhood vaccination and stated vaccination behaviour is consistent with the benchmark, future vaccination intent is significantly higher post-Campaign. In the benchmark wave, 74% of parents of children aged 0-5 reported their children were ‘very likely’ to have had all of their vaccinations on the schedule before they are five, this is up 13 points to 87% post-Campaign. This is a strong result, indicating that exposure to the Campaign is serving to galvanise future vaccination intent.Perceptions that vaccinations are safe, effective and important have shown significant increases post-Campaign. There have been positive shifts in typology post-Campaign, with parents more likely to be ‘Strong Advocates’ and ’Active Acceptors’. This shift from passive to active support indicates that the Campaign may be increasing parents’ overall interest in the topic, and comfort expressing their positive views about childhood vaccination with others.The Campaign elements tested are performing well on diagnostic measures, with target audiences finding the videos to be highly relatable, credible, and informative.

i

2. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES2.1 BackgroundAustralia 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 93% (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) has developed the Campaign. The first phase of the Campaign commenced on 13th August 2017 and ran until 10 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.2.2 Campaign Objectives The overall aim of the ‘‘Get the facts about immunisation education 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, including people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. Online aspects of the Campaign were also geo-targeted to areas of low immunisation rates.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.

1

2.3 Research Requirement & ObjectivesPost-Campaign quantitative evaluation research was required to measure the effectiveness of the Campaign amongst the primary target audiences against the communications objectives.The Department of Health undertook large-scale qualitative developmental research in 2016, and a further quantitative research on childhood immunisation in early 2017, which acted as a benchmark for the evaluation research (parent sample only, pregnant women were not included in benchmark research).Specifically, the evaluation research was required to determine:

Level of Campaign awareness; Relevance and credibility of Campaign messages; Impacts of attitudes towards vaccination; Awareness of information resources; Intentions and commitment to vaccinate; What (if any) improvements are recommended in order to maximise the

effectiveness of the Campaign.

2

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY3.1 Methodology: Online SurveyA 15-minute online survey was conducted with a total of n=1,341 key audience for the Campaign including n=1,034 parents of children aged 0-5, and n=307 pregnant women. The sample of pregnant women included a mix of first-time mothers and pregnant women who also had other children. This large, nationally representative sample allows for robust results for comparison with the benchmark study and for comparison and analysis by key sub-groups.The quantitative fieldwork commenced at the end of the main run of Phase 1 of the Campaign, in order to measure awareness and impact at peak levels. The fieldwork ran from 11–29 September 2017. Participants were sourced from two ISO-accredited panel providers.The sample included n=190 participants from the geo-targeted areas of low immunisation rates, and a further n=1,151 participants from a nationally representative spread of non-targeted postcodes. The sample was weighted to current Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures on location (by state, by metro & regional). The sample also included a nationally representative sample of people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds (n=65), and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (n=327). A full sample profile is included in Appendix A.The survey questionnaire was modelled on the quantitative benchmark questionnaire to allow for measurement of any significant or indicative differences on key measures pre- and post-Campaign. This included measuring impact of the Campaign on attitudes, perceptions and behaviours relating to childhood immunisation, including the proportion of audiences falling into typologies identified in the developmental research. In addition to these benchmark measures, Campaign awareness, and diagnostic questions were included to evaluate the reach of and audiences’ response to the Campaign.Throughout the report, the focus is on comparing the impact of the Campaign between the benchmark and tracking waves for parents of children aged 0-5 (no benchmark figures available for pregnant women group), as well as comparing the awareness and response to the Campaign between the two key audiences – parents of children aged 0-5 (referred to as ‘parents’ throughout this report), and pregnant women (referred to as ‘pregnant’ throughout this report).Subgroup analysis was conducted on a range of key demographic and profiling measures, including:

Gender Age Cultural and linguistic diversity Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background Involvement in parents’ groups Child’s enrolment in daycare Employment status Education level Relationship status Household income

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

3

3.2 Methodology: Website Exit Survey Component 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.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

At the end of their visit to the Campaign website, visitors were invited (via a pop-up window, shown on exit intent) to take a short survey about what brought them to the website. The pop-up window (and survey itself) was web-accessible, requiring a plain-text delivery.In the first few weeks of the Campaign, the website had high levels of traffic, due to targeted social media posts and online ads driving viewers to the website for more information. However, due to the timing of the commencement of this evaluation research, the pop-up exit survey was only able to capture the final five days of Campaign activity (September 5–10). The exit survey remained open until September 29, but during that time there were much lower levels of traffic to the site.However, the results still provide indicative insights as to audience’s visitation intent and response to the information on the website.The pop-up received n=2,971 impressions and n=170 click-throughs, resulting in n=78 completed surveys. This click through rate of 5.7% is within the expected range of 5–8% for pop-ups.

4

4. CAMPAIGN AWARENESS4.1 Unprompted awarenessUnprompted awareness of any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination is high. As shown in Figure 1, 50% of parents of children aged 0-5 and 63% of pregnant women report they have recently seen some form of advertising or information relating to childhood vaccination (53% NET). It is clear that the target audiences, parents of children aged 0-5 and pregnant women, are highly attuned to information and advertising regarding childhood vaccination. This level of unprompted awareness is higher than the overall prompted awareness of the Campaign, meaning that audiences are thinking of a range of sources regarding advertising and information on this topic. 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, Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,034, Pregnant women, n=307. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

Figure 2 shows several significant differences between sub-groups on this measure. Mothers’ unprompted awareness of advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination is 13 points higher than fathers. Those currently in a mothers’ or parents’ group are significantly more likely (+19 points) to be attuned to advertising or information on this topic, as are those who have their children in daycare or intending to enrol their children in daycare (+14 points). This pattern of higher awareness among people involved in parents’ groups and people who choose daycare for their children is seen throughout several measures in this study.

5

Figure 2. Unprompted awareness of any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination – subgroups with significantly higher awareness

Sub-group Unprompted Awareness

Mothers 53% Fathers 40%Currently in parents’ group 63% Not in parents’ group 44%Under 30 years old 59% 30 years old or over 51%Attending / planning to attend daycare 57% Not attending / planning to attend daycare

43%

NET 53%Source: Q9. Have you seen/heard any advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination recently? Base, Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,034, Pregnant women, n=307. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

4.1.1 Unprompted awareness message take outParticipants 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 open-ended responses were coded thematically, the results of which show that parents and pregnant women are exposed to a wide range of information and sources on childhood vaccination (see Figure 3).The most common message take-out was a general message regarding the importance of vaccines; that they help stop the spread of disease and save lives, followed by mentions of ‘No Jab, No Pay’. Parents are significantly more likely than the pregnant group to recall information about ‘No Jab, No Pay’ (22% vs. 8%), and also more likely to mention ‘No Jab, No Play’ (13% vs. 8%).

6

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

Source: Q10. What was that advertising or tracking trying to tell you? Base, Tracking wave: sample who had recently seen advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination Parents 0-5 n=507, Pregnant women, n=193. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

Due to common themes of the importance of vaccines (especially for children) and reminders to vaccinate on time, it is not possible to identify an exact proportion of these audiences who were thinking of the ‘Get the facts about immunisation education campaign’ unprompted. However, strong recall of relevant messages (including that vaccination prevents serious disease and saves lives, and the importance of herd immunity) indicates the Campaign is cutting through.Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses shows that when participants were recalling the Campaign specifically, they most commonly mentioned the babies who had died due to vaccine-preventable diseases. This ties in to the results of the diagnostic measures which show that audiences are connecting strongly with the messages relating to the importance of immunising children to protect infants who are

7

too young to be vaccinated, and are highly engaged with the stories of families affected by these personal tragedies.“[On] Facebook - it was about a baby called Riley who died of whooping cough.”“It said 93% of Australian kids are immunized and we should aim for 100%.”“It was an ad on a YouTube video showing a baby with meningococcal disease and was urging people to vaccinate their children.”Source: Q10. What was that advertising or tracking trying to tell you? Open ended responses, parents and pregnant women sample who had recently seen advertising or information regarding childhood vaccination.

4.2 Prompted awarenessPrompted awareness of the ‘Get the facts about immunisation education campaign’ is high, especially for a new campaign with just one round of communication activity so far.This section includes awareness levels of the Campaign overall, and awareness levels of the various elements and channels of the Campaign activity.

4.2.1 Prompted awareness – seen at least one element of the Campaign As shown in Figure 4, a quarter (25%) of parents of children aged 0-5, and over a third (37%) of pregnant women have seen at least one aspect of the Campaign (28% NET).This high rate of prompted awareness is a strong result for the Campaign, indicating that the communication strategy is working well overall.Figure 4 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).Figure 4. Prompted awareness – seen at least one element of the Campaign*

*Constructed variable comprised of positive responses to prompted awareness of the Campaign overall and to a range of Campaign elements (videos, Facebook posts, online ads).Source: Q19. An information campaign called ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ has been running recently. Have you seen anything from this campaign before today? (In any form - this could be online ads, videos, articles, printed materials, etc.) Some example images from the Campaign are below. Q21. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ posts have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these posts on social media lately? Q22. 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, Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,034, Pregnant women, n=307. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

There was considerable variation in overall prompted awareness among sub-groups, demographic measures and audience profiles, as shown in Figure 5. Females were significantly more likely to be aware of the Campaign than males (+9 points) and

8

those aged under 30 were significantly more likely to be aware than those aged 30 or over (+12 points). Those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds reported significantly higher levels of awareness (+10 points), as did people who hold a bachelor or post-graduate degree (+9 points). The pattern of involvement in daycare and parents’ groups meaning higher levels of awareness is found here as well.Those in the geo-targeted postcodes were indicatively more likely to report awareness of the Campaign than those in non-targeted postcodes (+5 points).Figure 5. Prompted awareness – seen at least one element of the Campaign* – by subgroup

Sub-group Prompted Awareness

Female 29% Male 21%Geo-targeted 32%Non-targeted 27%Under 30 years old 37% 30 years old or over 25%Attending / planning to attend daycare 32% Not attending / planning to attend daycare

18%

Currently in parents’ group 39% Not currently in parents’ group 21%CALD 35% Non-CALD 25%Bachelor / post-grad degree 32%

No bachelor / post-grad degree 23%NET 28%

*Constructed variable comprised of positive responses to prompted awareness of the Campaign overall and to a range of Campaign elements (videos, Facebook posts, online ads). Source: Q19. An information campaign called ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ has been running recently. Have you seen anything from this campaign before today? (In any form - this could be online ads, videos, articles, printed materials, etc.) Some example images from the Campaign are below. Q21. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ posts have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these posts on social media lately? Q22. 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, Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,034, Pregnant women, n=307. Significantly higher than NET at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

9

4.2.2 Prompted awareness – overallParticipants were prompted with a set of ‘hero’ Campaign images to ascertain overall awareness (see stimulus in Appendix B). As shown in Figure 6, 16% of parents of children aged 0-5 and 23% of pregnant women reported they recognised the Campaign from these hero images (18% NET).Figure 6. Overall prompted awareness (based on ‘hero’ images of the Campaign)

Source: Q19. An information campaign called ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ has been running recently. Have you seen anything from this campaign before today? (In any form - this could be online ads, videos, articles, printed materials, etc.) Some example images from the Campaign are below. Total base: Parent n=1034, Pregnant n=307. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

4.2.3 Source of overall prompted awarenessParticipants who reported they had seen the Campaign based on the overall ‘hero’ images were asked where they saw or heard the information from the Campaign. The main sources of awareness include the social media posts, online ads and news coverage (Figure 7)As is common with online campaigns, in total, 49% of the sample reported they had seen the Campaign on a TV ad. These figures are in line with other comparable studies not including a TVC component. Audiences tend to assume that their recall of video content came from a television ad.A third (29% NET) reported they had seen the Campaign via a post on social media, and a further 18% (NET) remembered seeing a video on social media.23% (NET) recalled seeing an online ad, with a further 19% (NET) reporting they had seen an online video.17% (NET) remembered seeing the Campaign via news coverage on television. Pregnant women were significantly more likely to have seen news coverage (26% seen) as compared to the parent group (13% seen).

10

Figure 7. Source of overall prompted awareness

Source: Q20. Where did you see or hear information from the ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ campaign? Base: Those aware of campaign: Parent n=164, Pregnant n=72. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

Two in ten (19% NET) recalled seeing printed posters or brochures from the Campaign. Medical centres and doctors’ offices were cited as the most common sources of awareness of printed materials, followed by childcare centres (Figure 8). The printed materials were distributed to childcare and early education services at the end of August, and not to general practitioners’ offices. This misattribution to doctor’s offices is likely due to the similar messages (e.g. importance of childhood immunisation) of other printed materials commonly available in medical settings. However, the sample sizes for specific sources of recall of the printed materials are low (n=45 total), meaning the results should be taken as indicative only.

11

Figure 8. Source of awareness for printed materials

Location Parent 0-5 Pregnant

NET

In a doctor’s office / hospital / medical centre n=24 n=11 n=35In a child care centre n=15 n=7 n=22At a play group n=6 n=6 n=12At a YMCA n=8 n=3 n=12Total n=31 n=14 n=11

*CAUTION: Very small base sizes on specific sources and should be taken as indicative only.Source Q24. You mentioned that you saw information on this campaign on a printed poster / brochure. Do you remember where you saw this? Base: Those who have seen campaign via printed poster / brochure, parents n=31, pregnant n=14.

11% (NET) recalled seeing the Campaign on an online blog or article, with pregnant women significantly more likely to cite this as a source of information than the parent group (18% vs. 7%). The most commonly mentioned website for online articles and/or blogs was BubHub (click here to visit the website) (Figure 9). The base size for specific sources of awareness for online articles and/or online blogs is very small (n=25 total), and as such the results should be taken as indicative onlyFigure 9. Source of awareness for blogs or online articles

Website Parent 0-5 Pregnant

NET

Bubhub.com.au n=6 n=8 n=14Babycenter.com.au n=4 n=7 n=11EssentialBaby.com.au

n=5 n=6 n=11

Babyology.com.au n=3 n=7 n=10Mamamia.com.au n=3 n=7 n=10Total n=12 n=13 n=25

*CAUTION: Very small base sizes on specific sources and should be taken as indicative only.Source Q23. You mentioned that you saw information on this campaign in an online article / blog post or online advertisement. Do you remember where you saw this? Q24. You mentioned that you saw information on this campaign on a printed poster / brochure. Do you remember where you saw this? Q25. Do you remember seeing any online ads for this information campaign written in [TARGETED LANGUAGE SELECTED AT Q7]?

The majority (63%) of CALD audiences within the targeted language groups (Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin and Vietnamese) reported they had only seen the materials in English (Figure 10). The base size for participants within the targeted language groups who were also aware of seeing the Campaign via printed materials is very low (n=24), and as such the results should be taken as indicative only.Figure 10. Awareness of in-language materials

Language seen printed materials in

NET

In native language only n=0In native language and in English n=6

12

http://www.bubhub.com.au/

Language seen printed materials in

NET

In English only n=15Can’t remember n=3Total n=24

*CAUTION: Very small base sizes on specific sources and should be taken as indicative only.Source Q25. Do you remember seeing any online ads for this information campaign written in [TARGETED LANGUAGE SELECTED AT Q7]? Base: Those in targeted language groups who have seen campaign via printed poster / brochure, total n=24.

4.2.4 Prompted awareness of specific Campaign elements Participants were prompted with stimulus materials of key Campaign elements (see Appendix 12), including:

Facebook ads (carousels) Facebook posts (video links) Digital ads ‘93%’ Digital ads ‘Protects’ 45 second video 15 second video ‘Protects’

The Campaign elements with the highest levels of prompted awareness are the Facebook posts (16% NET), the 45 second video (15% NET), and the ‘93%’ and ‘Protects’ digital ads (14% NET).Figure 11 shows that pregnant women are significantly more likely than parents to have seen a range of Campaign elements; with the majority of pregnant women having seen two or more Campaign elements. Pregnant women are significantly more likely to have seen the Facebook posts (+7 points), the Facebook ads / carousels (+8 points), the 45 second video (+10 points), and the ‘93%’ digital ads (+10 points).

13

Figure 11. Prompted awareness of Campaign elements (parent vs. pregnant groups)

Source: Q21. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ posts have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these posts on social media lately? Q22. 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, Tracking wave: Parents 0-5 n=1,034, Pregnant women, n=307. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

Participants in the geo-targeted areas are significantly more likely to have seen the 45 second video than those in non-targeted areas (21% aware in geo-targeted postcodes vs. 14% aware in non-targeted postcodes (Figure 12)).

14

Figure 12. Prompted awareness of Campaign elements (non-targeted vs. geo-targeted groups)

Source: Q21. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ posts have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these posts on social media lately? Q22. 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, Tracking wave: Geo-targeted n=190, Non-targeted, n=1,151, weighted. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

There are several significant differences in awareness between subgroups for each Campaign element, as highlighted in Figures 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Common themes run across the sub-group differences in the awareness levels of the Campaign elements.Participants who have enrolled their child(ren) in daycare, or who plan to do so, are significantly more likely to be aware of a range of Campaign elements than those who have no plans to enrol their child(ren) in daycare. This is an interesting trend, which could be attributed to a range of factors, including the ‘No Jab, No Pay’ and ‘No Jab, No Play’ policies, which mean immunisation is a factor in the process of deciding to send your children to daycare, and also for receiving government payments to offset the cost. This would make vaccination a top-of-mind issue for parents with children in daycare, in turn making them more attuned to advertising and information on the topic.Those currently participating in a mothers’ or parents’ group, or who have done so in the past, have significantly higher levels of awareness across almost all the Campaign elements. Again, this could be attributed to a range of factors, but may be due to these people being connected to a community of other parents with infants and young children, where conversations about vaccination would likely be common. Again, these conversations would make parents more likely to notice communications relevant to the topic.

15

People aged under 30 are significantly more likely to have seen the Facebook ads and posts, as well as the digital ads. This is not surprising, and likely due to higher social media use among this younger audience.Figure 13. Prompted awareness of Facebook posts – subgroups

Sub-group Prompted Awareness of Facebook posts

Under 30 years old 25% 30 years old or over 13%Attending / planning to attend daycare 19% Not attending daycare 9%Currently in parents’ group 24% Not currently in parents’ group 12%CALD 21% Non-CALD 14%NET 16%

Source: Q21B. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ posts have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these posts on social media lately? Base, Tracking wave: Total sample, n=1,341.

Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

Figure 14. Prompted awareness of Facebook ads (carousels) – subgroups

Sub-group Prompted Awareness of Facebook ads (carousels)

Under 30 years old 21% 30 years old or over 9%Attending / planning to attend daycare 14% Not attending daycare 7%Currently in parents’ group 21% Not currently in parents’ group 8%CALD 23% Non-CALD 9%Bachelor / post-grad degree 15% No bachelor / post-grad degree 9%NET 12%

Source: Q21. Some ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ ads have been appearing on social media. Have you seen any of these ads on social media lately? Base, Tracking wave: Total sample, n=1,341. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

16

Figure 15. Prompted awareness of Digital Ads – ‘93%’ – subgroups

Sub-group Prompted Awareness of ‘93%’ Digital Ads

Under 30 years old 24% 30 years old or over 10%Attending / planning to attend daycare 16% Not attending daycare 8%Currently in parents’ group 21% Not currently in parents’ group 9%CALD 20% Non-CALD 12%Bachelor / post-grad degree 18% No bachelor / post-grad degree 10%NET 14%

Source: Q22. 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? Base, Tracking wave: those shown ‘93%’ Digital ad stimulus, n=669.


Figure 16. Prompted awareness of Digital Ads – ‘Protects’ – subgroups

Sub-group Prompted Awareness of ‘Protects’ Digital Ads

Currently in parents’ group 23% Not currently in parents’ group 7%CALD 22% Non-CALD 11%NET 14%

Source: Q22. 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? Base, Tracking wave: those shown ‘Protects’ Digital ad stimulus, n=672. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

17

Figure 17. Prompted awareness of 45 second video – subgroups

Sub-group Prompted Awareness of 45 second video

Geo-targeted 21% Non-targeted 14%Attending / planning to attend daycare 17% Not attending daycare 9%Currently in parents’ group 23% Not currently in parents’ group 11%CALD 22% Non-CALD 13%Bachelor / post-grad degree 19% No bachelor / post-grad degree 12%NET 15%

Source: Q28. Have you seen this video before today? Base, Tracking wave: Those shown 45 second video, n=963.


Figure 18. Prompted awareness of 15 second video – subgroups

Sub-group Prompted Awareness of 15 second video

Attending / planning to attend daycare 14% Not attending daycare 4%NET 11%

Source: Q28. Have you seen this video before today? Base, Tracking wave: Those shown 15 second video, n=378. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

18

4.2.5 Exposure levelsThere is no indication of over-exposure or fatigue with the Campaign; the majority (53% NET) have only seen the Campaign once or twice (Figure 19), and a strong majority (84% NET) report they would be happy to see the Campaign again (Figure 20).The fact that such a strong proportion of both key audiences say they would be happy to see the Campaign again indicates that the materials have a high level of likeability.This lack of over-exposure or fatigue is consistent across the two key audiences and between demographic and profiling sub-groups.Figure 19. Number of times seen Campaign

Source: Q26B. Thinking about the ‘Get the Facts about Immunisation’ campaign, how many times would you say you’ve seen the Campaign overall? Base, tracking wave: Seen at least one element of the Campaign: Parents 0-5 n=258, Pregnant women, n=115.

Figure 20. Feelings about seeing the Campaign again

Source: Q26C. How would you feel about seeing this campaign again? Base, tracking wave: Seen at least one element of the Campaign: Parents 0-5 n=258, Pregnant women, n=115.

19

5. CAMPAIGN IMPACTOverall, the Campaign is showing strong signs of impacting positively on key measures relating to immunisation perceptions, attitudes, and intended behaviours.5.1 Direct or stated Campaign impactSection 5.1 covers measures that deal with stated impact (actions taken as a result of seeing the Campaign) and direct impact (agreement with Campaign messages cut by exposure to the Campaign).

5.1.1 Actions taken as a result of Campaign exposureThe Campaign appears to be highly motivating; 66% of parents and 83% of pregnant women stated they took some action after seeing it (74% NET).Figure 21 shows that for many people, the Campaign is acting as a reminder; the most common action taken by parents as a result of seeing the Campaign was to check if their child(ren)’s vaccinations were up to date. As noted in the sample profile, the pregnant women group included women who also had other children.Figure 21. Actions taken as a result of seeing Campaign

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: Parents 0-5 n=258, Pregnant women, n=115. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

20

The Campaign appears to be particularly motivating for pregnant women; expectant mothers were more likely to take a range of actions as a result of seeing the Campaign. Pregnant women are significantly more likely than parents to report that they spoke to family and friends, looked for more information, went to the Campaign website, and researched to see if they lived in an area with low immunisation rates. This indicates that pregnant women are actively seeking out information regarding vaccinations, and are likely to want access to detailed information and resources on the topic.Subgroup analysis, shown in Figure 22, reveals that the Campaign also appears to be more motivating for a range of demographic and profiling sub-groups.People living in the geo-targeted postcodes (areas with low immunisation rates), are significantly more likely than those outside of these areas to have taken some action as a result of seeing the Campaign (+11 points).Younger people are more likely to have taken action (84% of those aged under 30, vs. 68% of those aged 30 or over).Parents and pregnant women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are significantly more likely to have taken some action as a result of seeing the Campaign (+25%). This is a dramatic difference, indicating that the Campaign is cutting through particularly strongly with CALD audiences.Figure 22. Action taken as a result of seeing Campaign – subgroups

Sub-group % Taken some action as a result of seeing campaign

Geo-targeted 83% Non-targeted 72%Under 30 years old 84% 30 years or older 68%Attending / planning to attend daycare 77% Not attending / planning to attend daycare

61%

Currently in parents’ group 85% Not currently in parents’ group 59%CALD 91% Non-CALD 66%NET 74%

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, n=373. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

21

5.1.2 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, 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).Figure 23 (overleaf) shows that audiences exposed to the Campaign are more likely to agree with a range of key Campaign messages relating to immunisation rates than those not exposed to the Campaign.People who had seen at least one element of the Campaign are significantly more likely to agree or strongly agree that ‘the rate of childhood vaccination is not high enough’ (74% if seen vs 63% if not seen). Those exposed to the Campaign are also more likely to agree or strongly agree that ‘children are more at risk in areas of low vaccination rates’ (91% if seen vs. 82% if not seen).People who have seen the Campaign are significantly more likely to strongly agree that ‘children should receive every vaccination on time’ (54% seen vs. 45% not seen).While comparison to benchmark figures is best practice for measuring the impact of a communication campaign, data cuts on stated Campaign exposure is another method that is useful in validating shifts pre- and post-Campaign. Several news stories relating to vaccination broke during the Campaign run, meaning that some of the positive shifts seen from the benchmark figures could be attributed to factors outside the Campaign. However, these significant differences between groups exposed, and not exposed to the Campaign, validate the positive shifts seen compared to the benchmark figures, and indicate that the Campaign is effectively working towards meeting the communication objectives.

22

Figure 23. Agreement with Campaign messages (seen vs. not seen Campaign)*

Campaign message and seen vs. not seen campaign

Strongly agree

Agree Not sure

Disagree Strongly disagree

Vaccination protects children from serious diseases (not seen campaign)

63% 28% 7% 1% 1%

Vaccination protects children from serious diseases (seen campaign)

64% 30% 3% 2% 1%

The rate of childhood vaccination in Australia is not high enough (not seen campaign)

31% 32% 30% 5% 2%

The rate of childhood vaccination in Australia is not high enough (seen campaign)

37% 37% 16% 8% 2%

Children are more at risk of catching diseases in areas that have low vaccination rates (not seen campaign)

46% 36% 14% 2% 1%

Children are more at risk of catching diseases in areas that have low vaccination rates (seen campaign)

56% 35% 5% 2% 2%

Getting your child vaccinated is important because it also protects other children, especially newborn babies (not seen campaign)

63% 25% 9% 1% 1%

Getting your child vaccinated is important because it also protects other children, especially newborn babies (seen campaign)

66% 25% 5% 2% 1%

Vaccines stimulate your natural defence systems, making the immune system stronger (not seen campaign)

39% 36% 23% 2% 1%

Vaccines stimulate your natural defence systems, making the immune system stronger (seen campaign)

47% 36% 13% 2% 2%

Children should receive every vaccination on time (not seen campaign)

45% 41% 10% 2% 1%

Children should receive every vaccination on time (seen campaign)

54% 37% 3% 2% 3%

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: Total sample seen any element of campaign n=373, total sample not seen, n=968. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

5.2 Campaign impact – comparison to benchmark figures The Campaign is showing significant improvements on some key measures as compared to the benchmark figures. Other measures have remained steady pre- and post-campaign.

23

5.2.1 Support of childhood vaccination Overall support for childhood vaccination has remained steady and strong post-Campaign.Figure 24 shows that in the benchmark wave, 93% of parents of children aged 0-5 supported or strongly supported childhood vaccination, which is essentially unchanged at 92% in the tracking wave. There has been a very slight (non-significant) shift of Parents of children aged 0-5 moving from ‘support it’ (-4 points) to ‘strongly support it’ (+4 points), indicating that the Campaign may be serving to further strengthen support of those already in favour of vaccination.Pregnant women show similar levels of support of childhood vaccination as parents in the tracking wave, the proportion of this audience who support or strongly support it is also at 92% in the tracking wave (no benchmark figures available for pregnant women audience).Other measures (namely positive shifts in typology) indicate that the Campaign is serving to strengthen the ‘nature’ of the target audience’s support of childhood vaccination. While overall support has remained steady, those who support childhood vaccination are more comfortable expressing their views to others, are interested in finding out more information, and are more committed to vaccinating their children in line with the schedule. Based on this result, future waves of the Campaign may see further shifts, most likely in moving people from ‘support’ to ‘strong support’. Further, the increased comfort of ‘strong supporters’ in discussing their positive views with others may result in more direct word-of-mouth sharing of information with people who are ‘on the fence’ or opposed to childhood vaccination.Figure 24. Support of childhood vaccination (Benchmark vs. Tracking)

Source: Q11. Overall, how do you feel about childhood vaccination? Base: Benchmark parents n=872, Tracking Parents 0-5 n=1034; Pregnant n=307.

24

Aligning to the higher levels of awareness among these groups, people who are involved with parents’ groups and daycare have significantly higher levels of support for childhood vaccination than those not involved (Figure 25).Figure 25. Support of childhood vaccination – subgroups (tracking wave)

Sub-group % Strongly support

In parents’ group in the past 81% Never in parents’ group 72%Attending daycare 78% Not attending / planning to attend daycare

68%

NET 75%Source: Q11. Overall, how do you feel about childhood vaccination? Base: Tracking Parents 0-5 n=1,341.

5.2.2 Stated vaccination behaviourLike the overall support measure, stated vaccination behaviour among parents of children aged 0-5 is also consistent with the benchmark wave.In the benchmark wave, 92% of parents of children aged 0-5 reported their children were fully up to date with the schedule for their age, the tracking wave saw this level essentially unchanged - a very slight 2-point increase on this measure to 94%. This consistency in stated behaviour is to be expected. As behaviour change follows on from changes in attitudes and perceptions, we would expect to see shifts in the proportion of parents who report their children are fully up to date with the schedule to follow on from positive shifts in vaccination intent (as discussed in section 5.2.3), but this measure will necessarily take time (and potentially need further waves of the Campaign) to shift.Figure 26. Stated vaccination behaviour among parents (Benchmark vs. Tracking)

Source: Q12. Have your children been immunised? Base: Benchmark Parents n=872, Tracking Parents n=1034.

The fact that these figures align so closely with the actual rates of children who are fully immunised (93%), confirms that the sample included in this study is nationally representative.

25

Figure 27 shows several significant differences between sub-groups on stated vaccination behaviour. As might be expected, parents who were in the geo-targeted set (based on their area having lower immunisation rates), reported lower levels of being ‘fully up to date’ with the schedule (89% vs. 95% in the non-geo-targeted areas).

26

Figure 27. Stated vaccination behaviour among parents (subgroups)

Sub-group % Fully up to date

Non-targeted 95% Geo-targeted (in areas with lower immunisation rates)

89%

In parents’ group in past 97% Never in parents’ group 92%Attending daycare 95% Not attending / planning to attend daycare

90%

No bachelor / post grad degree 96% Bachelor / post grad degree 91%NET 94%

Source: Q12. Have your children been immunised? Base: Tracking Parents n=1034. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

5.2.3 Future vaccination intent Future vaccination intent is significantly higher post-Campaign. In the tracking wave, 87% of parents of children aged 0-5 reported their children were ‘very likely’ to have had all of their vaccinations on the schedule before they are five, as compared to 74% in the benchmark wave (+13 points).This is a strong result, and indicates that exposure to the Campaign is serving to galvanise future vaccination intent.This shift aligns with the finding that the Campaign is serving as a reminder to parents – that the most common action taken by parents as a result of seeing the Campaign is to check to see if their children are up to date. Figure 28. Future vaccination intent – Parents group (benchmark vs. tracking)

Source: Q13. How likely are your children to have had all the vaccinations on the schedule before they are five? Base: Benchmark parents n=872, Tracking Parents 0-5 n=1034. Significantly higher than benchmark at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

27

As shown in Figure 29, there are significant differences between subgroups within the parent sample in the tracking wave. Parents aged over 30, and those who are not from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, are significantly more likely to report their children are ‘very likely’ to have had all of the vaccinations on the schedule before they are five.Figure 29. Future vaccination intent by subgroup (Parents – tracking wave)

Sub-group % Very likely

30 years old or over 89% Under 30 years old 81%Non-CALD 89% CALD 81%Planning to attending daycare 90% Not planning to attend daycare 85%NET 87%

Source: Q12. Have your children been immunised? Base: Benchmark Parents n=872, Tracking Parents n=1034. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

5.2.4 Vaccination perceptionsPerceptions that vaccinations are safe, effective and important have shown significant increases post-Campaign.Parents are significantly more likely to strongly agree that ‘vaccination is safe for children’ (39% benchmark vs 53% tracking wave), that ‘vaccinations are effective at preventing disease’ (53% benchmark vs. 70% tracking wave), and that ‘vaccinating is important to protect unvaccinated children’ (37% benchmark vs. 48% tracking wave) (Figure 30).Pregnant women show similar levels of agreement to parents on these measures in the tracking wave (no benchmark figures available).

28

Figure 30. Vaccination perceptions (Benchmark vs. Tracking)*

Vaccination perceptions (Benchmark vs. Tracking for Parents 0-5, Tracking for Pregnant women)

Strongly agree

Agree Not sure


I believe vaccination is safe for children (Benchmark Parents)

39% 40% 17% 3% 1%

I believe vaccination is safe for children (Parents 0-5)

53% 34% 9% 3% 1%

I believe vaccination is safe for children (Pregnant)

51% 35% 10% 2% 1%

I believe vaccination is an effective way of preventing serious diseases (Benchmark Parents)

53% 31% 13% 2% 1%

I believe vaccination is an effective way of preventing serious diseases (Parents 0-5)

70% 22% 6% 2% 1%

I believe vaccination is an effective way of preventing serious diseases (Pregnant)

66% 26% 6% 1% 1%

I believe vaccination is important to protect unvaccinated children (Benchmark Parents)

37% 29% 21% 8% 4%

I believe vaccination is important to protect unvaccinated children (Parents 0-5)

48% 27% 14% 8% 3%

I believe vaccination is important to protect unvaccinated children (Pregnant)

44% 32% 13% 7% 3%

Q.16 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: Benchmark parents n=872, Tracking Parents 0-5 n=1034, Pregnant n=307. Significantly higher than benchmark at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

29

5.2.5 TypologyPerhaps most notably of the shifts from the benchmark figures, there have been positive shifts in typology post-Campaign, with parents more likely to be ‘Strong Advocates’ and ’Active Acceptors’.This strong result indicates the Campaign may be increasing parents’ overall interest in the topic, and comfort discussing their positive opinions about childhood vaccination with others.As shown in Figure 31, in the tracking wave, 21% of parents aged 0-5 fell into the ‘Strong Advocates’ segment, post Campaign, this has increased 11 points to 32% in this segment (significant shift).The proportion of parents in the ‘Active Acceptors’ segment has seen an indicative increase of 6 points, from 26% in the benchmark to 32% post-Campaign. The proportion ‘Cautious Considerers’ has seen an indicative decrease among parents, from 8% pre-Campaign to 3% post-Campaign.Figure 31. Typology (Benchmark vs. Tracking)

Source: 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, Parents 0-5 n=1034, Pregnant n=307. Significantly higher than benchmark at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

30

5.2.6 Knowledge of proportion vaccinated Parents estimate the proportion of children that are fully vaccinated post-Campaign is at a similar level to the benchmark. There are no significant differences in knowledge of the percentage of children vaccinated in Australia (pre / post or exposed / not exposed).This indicates that the Campaign message ‘93% of Aussie kids are fully vaccinated’ is not cutting through as strongly as some of the other Campaign messages.Figure 32. Estimated % of children fully vaccinated (Mean, Benchmark vs. Tracking)

Q15. What percentage of children do you think are fully vaccinated in Australia? Base Benchmark parents n=872, Tracking Parent (0-5) n=1034, Pregnant n=307.

31

6. CAMPAIGN DIAGNOSTICSCampaign diagnostics were undertaken on the 45 second video and the 15 second video ‘Protects’.6.1 Message take outFigure 33 shows that participants who watched the full 45 second video had message take-outs relating to:

‘Vaccines protect and save lives’ ‘Herd immunity keeps all children safe’ ‘Vaccines and important’ ‘Get your children vaccinated’

Figure 33. Message take out (45 second video, open ended response)

Q29. In your own words, what was the video trying to tell you? What was the main message or messages? Base: Total sample, 45 sec video n=963. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

“[The message of the video is]: Only 93% of children in Australia are vaccinated, by vaccinating your own children, you also help save the lives of other children, such as newborn babies who are too young to be vaccinated against certain illnesses.” [45 sec video]Source: Q29. In your own words, what was the video trying to tell you? What was the main message or messages? Open ended responses.

32

Figure 34 shows that participants who watched the 15 second video also had message take-outs relating to:

‘Vaccines protect and save lives’ ‘Herd immunity keeps all children safe’ ‘Vaccines and important’ ‘Get your children vaccinated’ ‘Go to the website, do research’

Figure 34. Message take out (15 second video, open ended response)

Q29. In your own words, what was the video trying to tell you? What was the main message or messages? Base: Total sample, 15 sec video n=378. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

“[The message of the video is]: There is a website that parents can search for more information about the benefits and facts of vaccination and immune system.” [15 sec video]Source: Q29. In your own words, what was the video trying to tell you? What was the main message or messages? Open ended responses.

33

6.2 DiagnosticsOverall, both videos perform extremely well across a full range of diagnostic measures. Both videos are found to be credible, informative, differentiated from other health campaigns, and clear and easy to understand. As both videos are received very positively by the target audiences, and there is clearly a role for the inclusion of both in any future iterations of the Campaign.

6.2.1 Diagnostics – Parents (45 second video)Parents found the 45 second video to be highly credible: 87% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that the people in the 45 second video were believable and 89% agreed or strongly agree that the information in the 45 second video was trustworthy.The 45 second video was also found by parents to be highly relevant: 65% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the video was not relevant to them, and 89% agreed or strongly agreed that it aligns with their own beliefs about childhood vaccination.Another strength of the longer video is that it was found to be particularly informative: 65% of parents agree or strongly agree that they learned something new from watching the 45 second video, and 93% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that the 45 second video was clear and easy to understand.Figure 35. Diagnostics – Parents (45 second video)

Diagnostic measures – Parents (45 second video)

Strongly agree

Agree Not sure


The people in the video were believable 47% 40% 10% 3% 1%The messages in this video align with my own beliefs about childhood vaccination

56% 33% 8% 1% 1%

I learned something new from watching this video

27% 38% 21% 10% 4%

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

25% 37% 29% 6% 2%

The information was balanced 37% 43% 14% 4% 2%The information was trustworthy 48% 41% 10% 1% 1%This video was not relevant to me 7% 12% 16% 31% 34%The information was clear and easy to understand

57% 36% 6% 1% 0%

Q30. Using the scale below, please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the statements below about the video you have just watched. Base: 45 second video - Parents n=698.

6.2.2 Diagnostics – Parents (15 second video)The 15 second video was also felt to be credible: 82% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that the people in the 15 second video were believable, and 82% agreed or strongly agreed that the information in the 15 second video was trustworthy.85% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that it aligns with their own beliefs about childhood vaccination, and 91% of parents agreed or strongly agreed that the 15 second video was clear and easy to understand.

34

Figure 36. Diagnostics – Parents (15 second video)

Diagnostic measures – Parents (15 second video)

Strongly agree

Agree Not sure



47% 38% 12% 1% 2%


13% 24% 32% 22% 9%


15% 25% 45% 12% 3%


48% 43% 7% 1% 1%

Q30. Using the scale below, please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the statements below about the video you have just watched. Base: 15 second video - Parents n=336.

6.2.3 Diagnostics – Pregnant women (45 second video) Pregnant women found the 45 second video highly informative; 68% of pregnant women agreed or strongly agreed that they learned something new from watching the 45 second video. This group also found the video to be extremely clear and easy to understand (92% agreed or strongly agreed).Pregnant women also found the 45 second video highly trustworthy (84% agreed or strongly agreed) and believable (83% agreed or strongly agreed).Figure 37. Diagnostics – Pregnant women (45 second video)

Diagnostic measures – Pregnant women (45 second video)

Strongly agree

Agree Not sure



47% 39% 11% 2% 2%


26% 42% 20% 10% 2%


29% 34% 28% 6% 2%


50% 42% 7% 1% 0%

Q30. Using the scale below, please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the statements below about the video you have just watched. Base: 45 second video - Pregnant n=265.

35

6.2.4 Diagnostics – Pregnant women (15 second video)Pregnant women also found the 15 second video trustworthy (71% agreed or strongly agreed) and believable (77% agreed or strongly agreed).Pregnant women found the 45 second video highly informative; 68% of pregnant women agreed or strongly agreed that they learned something new from watching the 45 second video. This group also found the video to be extremely clear and easy to understand (92% agree or strongly agree).Figure 38. Diagnostics – Pregnant women (15 second video)

Diagnostic measures – Pregnant women (15 second video)

Strongly agree

Agree Not sure



36% 43% 17% 2% 2%


7% 31% 33% 26% 2%


12% 26% 40% 17% 5%


36% 45% 17% 2% 0%

Q30. Using the scale below, please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the statements below about the video you have just watched. Base: 15 second video – Pregnant n=42. Low base size: results should be taken as indicative only.

36

6.3 Stated impact of videosAfter watching the 45 second video, 67% of pregnant women and 61% of parents reported they felt more informed about their decisions regarding childhood immunisation. This is significantly lower for the 15 second video, with 55% of pregnant women and 38% of parents feeling more informed after watching it (Figures 39 and 40).Figure 39. Feeling after watching the videos - Parents

Q31. Has watching this video had any impact on how you feel about your decisions regarding childhood immunisation? 15 sec base Parent n=336, 45 sec base Parent n=698. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

Figure 40. Feeling after watching the videos – Pregnant women

Q31. Has watching this video had any impact on how you feel about your decisions regarding childhood immunisation? 15 sec base Pregnant n=42. 45 sec base Pregnant n=265. Significantly higher than other cell at 95% level of confidence with a +/- 5% margin of error.

37

7. WEBSITE EXIT SURVEY7.1 ResultsThe 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.

7.1.1 Reason for website visitFigure 41 shows that the most common reasons for website visitation was to look for information about childhood immunisation generally (50% of visitors reported), and about the benefits of immunisation (28% reported). A quarter (26%) of website visitors were looking for information about a specific vaccine, and for information about vaccine preventable diseases.The results show that most website visitors were seeking information on multiple topics (2 on average).Figure 41. Reason for website visit – looking for information:

Source: Website Exit Survey. Q2. What brought you to this website today? Base: total sample, n=78, unweighted.

38

7.1.2 Support for childhood immunisation among visitorsWebsite 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). Figure 42 shows that nine in ten (91%) of website visitors reported they strongly support or support childhood vaccination, and no website visitors reported they opposed or strongly oppose childhood vaccination.Figure 42. Support for childhood immunisation among website visitors

Source: Website Exit Survey. Q3. How do you feel about childhood vaccination? Base: total sample, n=78, unweighted.

7.1.3 Visitor response to website informationOverall, website visitors’ response to the information on the site was positive; the information was largely agreed to be helpful, factual and balanced.Figure 43 shows that 77% of website visitors agreed or strongly agreed that the information on the website was helpful, 74% agreed or strongly agreed that the information was factual, and 72% agreed or strongly agreed that the information was balanced.While the majority (53%) reported they were able to find all the information they were looking for, a sizeable proportion – 34%, either disagreed or were neutral on this question. Cross-tab analysis showed that the website visitors who were not able to find all the information they were looking for (at Q4), tended to be looking for information on specific vaccines or about vaccine preventable diseases (at Q2).This indicates there may be opportunity to expand the scope of information and resources available on the Campaign website, specifically to provide visitors with detailed information about available vaccines and the diseases they prevent.

39

Figure 43. Response to information on website

Response to information on the website among visitors

Strongly agree

Agree

Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Don’t know

The information was helpful 51% 26% 8% 4% 5% 6%The information was factual 50% 24% 4% 4% 3% 15%The information was balanced 40% 32% 6% 5% 5% 12%I was able to find all the information I was looking for

38% 15% 14% 12% 8% 13%

Source: Website Exit Survey. Q4. Thinking about the information on the website, how much do you agree that… Base: total sample, n=78, unweighted.

7.1.4 Impact of website visitThe website is having a net positive impact on visitors feeling more confident and informed about their future decisions regarding childhood immunisation.Figure 44 shows that 37% of website visitors felt more confident or informed about their decisions regarding childhood immunisation after visiting the website, approximately half (47%) of website visitors reported the website had no impact, and no website visitors felt more conflicted or confused after their visit.Figure 44. Impact of visit on decisions regarding childhood immunisation

Source: Website Exit Survey. Q5. Has this website had any impact on how you feel about decisions regarding childhood immunisation? Base: total sample, n=78, unweighted.

40

8. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSCampaign awareness is high: a quarter of parents and over a third of pregnant women have seen some aspect of the Campaign. The high level of awareness after the first phase of the Campaign shows that the overall communication strategy is working well, and should be replicated for any future iterations of the Campaign.Facebook posts, the 45 second video, and the digital ads are the strongest Campaign elements in driving awareness. The online and social media channels are effective, and may mean that traditional TV and print would likely not be necessary for any future iterations of the Campaign.The Campaign is highly motivating, with two thirds of parents and 8 in 10 pregnant women taking action as a result. To capitalise on this, we recommend the creation of more related content (e.g. expanded information and resources on the Campaign website, more videos of families telling their stories).This wave shows an improvement on a range of key measures, including future vaccination intent, perceptions of childhood immunisation, and proportions of positive typologies. We recommend continuing the Campaign to solidify these improvements.Both versions of the video tested are performing well. The 45 second video performs strongest on measures including credibility, relevance, impact, and message take-out. When possible, the longer 45 second video (containing all content) should be used over shorter versions. Any alternate video executions should include the personal stories of the families, as these segments are the strongest drivers to overall engagement.The website is an effective complement to the Campaign materials, however some website visitors were not able to find all the information they were looking for on specific diseases and vaccinations. The redevelopment of the website, which is to include further information and resources, will likely be appreciated by these audiences who are looking for highly detailed information.

41

9. APPENDIX A: SAMPLE PROFILE

Audience % of total sample

Parents of children aged 0-5 77% (n=1,034)Pregnant women 23% (n=307)

Location % of total sample

Nationally representative spread of states, territories, metro & regional

86%

Postcodes within geo-targeted set 14%

Gender % of total sample

Female 75%Male 25%

CALD status % of total sample

Culturally and linguistically diverse 24%Non-CALD 76%

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status

% of total sample

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders 5%Non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 95%

Age % of total sample

18-24 8%25-29 19%30-34 30%35-39 26%40-44 12%45-49 4%50+ 2%

Household structure % of total sample

Couple 87%

42

Household structure % of total sample

Single 12%

Household income % of total sample

Under $39,999 12%$40,000 - $59,999 11%$60,000 - $79,999 14%$80,000 - $99,999 16%$100,000 - $149,999 27%$150,000 or over 11%

Highest education level % of total sample

Year 11 or below 7%Year 12 12%TAFE / Diploma 33%Bachelor degree 33%Post-graduate degree 16%

Employment status % of total sample

Employed full-time 38%Employed part-time 25%Full-time parent / home duties 26%Unemployed / looking for work 4%Student / other 6%

Involvement in Parents’ group % of total sample

Yes, currently 33%Yes, in the past 31%No 37%

Child daycare attendance % of total sample

Currently attending 47%Plan for child(ren) to attend in future 25%No / not sure 28%

10. APPENDIX B: STIMULUS

43

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 imagesThe ‘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.

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.

44

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

45

45 second videoThe 45 second video was shown to n=963 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.Link to the video: Click here to play the 45 second video on YouTube

46

https://youtu.be/_bsNY9YiqWQ

15 second video ‘Protects’The 15 second ‘Protects’ video was shown to n=378 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.Link to the video: Click here to play the 15 second 'Protects' video on YouTube

47

https://youtu.be/qSzEzZCMqjY

Documents

Childhood Immunisation Education Campaign Evaluation · Web viewQuantitative Research Report. Prepared for: Department of Health. ... This shift from passive to active support indicates