Communications involvement in program planning

The author first became involved in the communication project in October 1994. As mentioned earlier, the means of communication, as laid out in the Standards document, were set. This included what would be the first information most of the target audience would view: a letter of invitation from the local hospital corporation to make an appointment for a breast cancer screening examination. The letter, containing 319 words in eight-point print, is included in the Standards publication (Appendix A: Appendix D).

Upon viewing the means of communication in the Standards document and seeing the letter, the author researched the literacy level of the target population. Solid, reliable data about the literacy levels of the target group, 50-69 year old women in New Brunswick, was unavailable in October 1994, and is currently unavailable. However, if one accepts the data available at the time, the 1990 Literacy Skills Used in Daily Activities (LSUDA) survey information, and factors in reliable trends, a fairly reliable assumption about the group can be achieved.

The LSUDA study reflected an almost 40% illiteracy rate in Canada (Highlights...1995). Generally, the aged of the population have a lower level of education and a lower level of literacy. So, one can make the assumption that the level of illiteracy of the target group was over 40%. Staff at the New Brunswick Statistics Agency told the author, in his role as participant observer, that the illiteracy rate of the 50-69 year old women group was almost certainly over 50% and probably much higher (New Brunswick Statistics Agency, 1994).

Upon the discovery that the majority of the population would almost certainly not be able to understand the letter of invitation, the author, as a participant observer, communicated this to the project co-ordinator at the Department, Stephanie Smith. Ms. Smith was responsible for the central, departmental co-ordination of this program and a number of other programs. Additionally she was responsible for advising on health policy in the DHCS. Ms. Smith understood the problem, but explained that the letter was a result of input from many different sources, and was only a suggestion. This is a recollection by the author.

This intervention by the author was the first contact by any of the six DHCS communications personnel at any stage in this breast cancer screening project.