25
5 Awareness of FFP Communication Activities 5.1
Sources of information
At the FFP’s request, all participants in every interview and focus group were asked whether they recalled seven FFP communication activities. The findings are summarised in the table below, with district breakdowns from page 32 onwards.
Table 4: FFP Communication Recall: Overview FFP Communication Recall: Overall Audience IRMNCH
DMO / SHNS
LHS
LHW
Trader
Women
Men
Sample Size
19
91
139
195
125
183
171
Cable TV
5
33
19
26
15
25
18
Social media / Facebook
8
21
10
8
11
11
7
Mobile text / SMS
8
6
37
38
2
9
4
Awareness session
13
91
129
137
30
68
15
Billboards
10
46
41
29
8
25
8
Brochures
15
77
89
132
28
58
16
Posters
12
75
80
140
28
61
8
It must be understood that these figures are indicative only and are not statistically representative. They are not drawn from a representative cross-section of each target audience; show materials were not used to prompt awareness; and scores from larger focus groups carry more weight than smaller ones. RDS-II data suggest that TV has played some role in creating awareness of fortification in those districts surveyed, being the most important source of information (49% for wheat flour and 64% for oil) for the 11% of respondents who were aware of fortification. Hafizabad, which had no TV adverts, had substantially less awareness due to TV (17% for wheat flour and 29% for oil).
5.2
LHS and LHW
A thorough review of all 130+ sessions in this research study confirms that sessions with LHW are the dominant way in which women and men learn about the FFP and its activities. Not every beneficiary in every location has been reached by a LHW, given the scale of their task, which provides a useful control group in the analysis: where the public has been exposed to all of the FFP’s activities except LHW engagement, awareness of food fortification is likely to be low; where they have been reached by LHW, awareness is much higher. This implies that broadcast
