Sociology In The Real World

Being partnered with the UI Cancer Center to work on their Community QUIT smoking cessation program presented a perfect opportunity to use sociology in the real world. The program offers free smoking cessation resources, including a free quitline, group workshops, lung screenings, and connections to numerous other resources. Community QUIT primarily serves the specific neighborhoods of Chicago plagued with high rates of lung cancer and tobacco-related deaths (despite the overall smoking rate for Chicago decreasing). The UI Health System/Mile Square Clinics are immersed in underserved communities, primarily comprised of Black, Latinx, and/or lower socioeconomic status populations. The high rates of smoking that Community QUIT is directing its resources towards is a health disparity in need of thoughtful response. As a sociology student, I felt prepared to make a meaningful contribution through my 30-hour, 10-week project, which involved reconstructing their evaluation survey, developing marketing materials, and drafting a proposal to change the “gender” section on the intake form used by Community QUIT provided by the American Lung Association. Although we have not seen the end results of our deliverables (considering they have not yet been implemented), I am confident of their effectiveness based on the informed nature in which they were crafted.

The first item on our agenda was to reconstruct their evaluation questionnaire. As they are a fairly new program, this would be one of the first rounds of evaluation. This was an advantage to us, as we were given more freedom to make changes without impacting data collection as much. The problem with the original survey is that it did not seem to have a purpose behind it – it was not informed. Before making our changes, we sat down with Lisa and had a meaningful conversation to understand what Community QUIT would like to gain from implementing this survey. With their goals in mind of a true evaluation and wanting to listen to what the community members had to say, we took a more qualitative approach to the reconstruction. Having more open ended questions allows for more specific data, which is needed for Community QUIT as they are targeting specific populations.

Our next task was the develop marketing materials. We discussed the populations we were targeting: most of them were facing intersectional inequality of low socioeconomic status and racial segregation, which made the burden of healthcare that much heavier. Before submitting our final drafts, we presented to our class and asked them the question: “What recommendations do you have to market Community QUIT towards targeting communities?” The worksheet provided in class allowed for students to submit meaningful feedback to us, which called for a marketing strategy before finalizing any materials. The first drafts were made with little direction or reasoning to them, and it became evident that a discussion was warranted. We decided on clear, simple marketing. This would include blanket statements about lung cancer rates, tobacco targeting campaigns, and the free services offered by Community QUIT in an easy to read and understand format. As I mentioned previously, we have not seen the results of these campaigns yet (we have to wait until they are implemented), but I have confidence in our strategy.

The final piece of our project was a opening paragraph/overview of a proposal to the American Lung Association to change the “gender” question on their intake form. Currently, there are two options to choose from: male and female. This excludes anyone outside the gender binary, which is also another targeted population by the tobacco industry. The logic behind changing this to be more inclusive followed the lines that if Community QUIT is aiming to counter disproportionately affected areas that experience targeted campaigns by the tobacco industry, it should also counter the disproportionately affected populations.

Essentially, the Community QUIT program’s goal is to remedy the inequalities surrounding smoking between neighborhoods in the city of Chicago. In utilizing my sociological theory and research skills, I was able to contribute new and different ways to approach this health disparity. Drawing on ideas of space, place, and human geography from Progress in Human Geography (2012), I was able to construct a more refined lens at which to look at Community QUIT. In dealing with neighborhoods undergoing urban renewal and experiencing the rates of residential segregation that Chicago is infamous for, I was informed by Jamie Pearce, Ross Barnett, and Graham Moon of the notion that “when researching socio-economic or ethnic disparities in health, residential segregation and its links to urban inequality, social stress, social practices, or the targeting of minorities by tobacco companies, cannot be ignored” (2012:16). This was kept in mind throughout the entirety of my project.

Because the tobacco industry has a plethora of resources, their marketing campaigns are extremely effective. Our job was to counter that effectiveness in creative ways, as we did not have the same types of resources at our disposal. This involved critically thinking about ways to be as efficient and effective as possible in the marketing strategy. In doing so, we were able to think of a new, effective way to market to this population by being bold and clear in our statements and offering the information that is needed up front. This also meant expanding the evaluation survey to gather data on other social determinants of health that might be having an effect on smoking, particularly at the individual and community level (i.e. “Why did you start using tobacco?”). Questions along these lines help to comprehensively understand the root of the problem, which helps the Community QUIT program further its goal of analyzing the inequalities faced by these Chicago neighborhoods to address the health disparity surrounding smoking.