Karen Goldstein

Photo of Karen Goldstein

Vice President
Washington DC
Posts: 2

Karen brings a broad range of skills in public health communication and program management to Ogilvy Public Relations (Ogilvy PR). As a Vice President in the Social Marketing practice, Karen has experience across a range of public health issue—including chronic disease, reproductive health, children’s health, and cancer—and with diverse audiences, such as ethnic/racial minorities, low-literacy audiences, non-English speakers, health professionals, and partners. She is dedicated to ensuring that people have access to the information they need to make informed decisions about their health. Karen holds a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and History from Duke University and a master’s degree in Public Health from the Health Behavior and Health Education Department at the University of North Carolina’s School of Public Health.

A New Focus for Baby Sleep Safety

Mar 27

I have a baby, which means I spent much of the past few months in a sleep-deprived daze trying to get him to fall asleep—and stay asleep.  I’ve realized through the semi-obsessive talk with my “mommy friends” about how many hours and how many naps, as well as much internet research into what’s “normal,” that the question of how and where a baby sleeps remains controversial.  To prevent SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome), the focus of public health messaging for the past two decades has been on putting babies on their backs to sleep.  Thanks in part to the Back to Sleep campaign (created by NICHD in the early 90s and supported by Ogilvy in the early 2000s), this recommendation is well known and SIDS deaths have declined dramatically.  Yet the number of babies sleeping on their backs has plateaued and SIDS continues to be the leading cause of death among infants aged one month to 12 months.  At the same time, rates are on the rise of other sleep-related causes of infant death, such as entrapment or suffocation from accidents like babies getting caught between sofa cushions or adults rolling over babies in bed.

What’s happening here?  Have parents gotten complacent?  The rates of SIDS have decreased so dramatically over the years that perhaps new parents today don’t know anyone who has been impacted by SIDS and may not feel the urgency associated with back sleeping. Could the increase in co-sleeping be an unintended consequence of the success of Back to Sleep messaging?  As any parent knows, babies don’t sleep as well on their backs as on their tummies, but they sure do sleep well snuggled next to mom and dad.

In response to the increase in sleep-related deaths, the American Academy of Pediatrics expanded its sleep recommendations in 2011 to outline a comprehensive safe sleep environment, adding recommendations like breastfeeding, immunizations, and avoiding crib bumpers.  The recommendations also weigh in against bed-sharing, opting for room-sharing instead. This shouldn’t be surprising, given the data that clearly shows the dangers. Yet the recommendations also acknowledge that there isn’t evidence yet showing it can be done safely, not necessarily that it can’t be done safely.

Ad showing a baby sleeping on a bed next to a large knifeWith dangerous sleep practices on the rise, it makes sense there would be a renewed focus on public education.  The Back to Sleep campaign renamed itself Safe to Sleep. And you see campaigns like this one from the Milwaukee Health Department that aim to get the message out about the dangers of bringing baby to bed with you.  Knife-wielding babies?  Yep, that certainly gets my attention.  But did I learn enough from it?  The parent in me has a hard time reconciling this directive with my personal experiences of having my baby sleep longer next to me in those early months.  And the public health educator in me is wondering if we are missing a huge teachable moment here by telling parents not to practice this behavior instead of sharing information on how to do it safely. (By the way, the Milwaukee Health Department released new ads less than a year later with babies in cribs on their backs.)

Will the guilt and blame associated with bed-sharing lead parents to hide this behavior from their pediatricians or support networks?  Are we missing an opportunity here to educate parents about how to bed-share more safely, such as by removing fluffy blankets and tying back long hair?  Perhaps similar to the argument for sex education for teens…if people are going to do it anyway, isn’t it our responsibility to teach them how to do it safely?

What is the right balance between condoning a behavior and teaching safety? Are there messages about other behaviors with this type of dilemma that have it figured out?

Want to be smarter? Try dressing like a doctor.

May 10

As a preteen in the 80s, my demands for Guess jeans and Z Cavaricci shorts were met repeatedly with the same wise—but at the time, annoying—words from my mom: “It’s not what you wear. It’s what’s on the inside that counts.”

Even though she was doing it more in the “we’re not buying you those ridiculously expensive designer clothes” kind of way, the point was not lost on me.  We’d all like to think that what we wear doesn’t really impact how people perceive us – that people will be able to tell how smart or talented or kind we are by what we say and how we act.  But what about how we perceive ourselves?

We know that there are times when we want to “dress to impress,” whether for a job interview or to meet your boyfriend’s parents.  We know that people do pay attention to what we are wearing, whether consciously or not.  Studies have shown that women wearing masculine clothing in a job interview are more likely to be hired, and teaching assistants wearing more formal clothes are thought to be smarter.  Plus, maybe more importantly, what we wear can impact how we feel about ourselves.  I think many of us feel differently when we dress up for a special event or wear a suit to an important meeting.

But could what we wear actually influence our cognitive abilities?  Turns out the answer might be yes, and that wearing clothing that you associate with being smart can make you act smarter.  The New York Times recently reported on a study led by Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management (read study abstract) that showed that wearing a white coat that you believe to be a doctor’s coat—as opposed to a painter’s coat—will increase your ability to pay attention.  This is a phenomenon the authors call “enclothed cognition,” which posits that the clothing you wear systematically affects your psychological processes.  If you know the symbolic meaning of a piece of clothing (i.e., a doctor’s white coat), you may take on the traits you associate with it (i.e., being careful, rigorous) when you wear it.  It’s a play on “embodied cognition,” a growing scientific field focused on the interplay of how our physical experiences (e.g., position, posture) impact our psychological processes (e.g., make us feel more powerful).

Image from Mercy Hospital

The goal of the study was to determine if your clothes could affect how you approach and interact with the world.  Research participants who wore a white “doctor’s coat” performed better on a test of sustained attention than those wearing a white “painter’s coat,” a generic white coat, or street clothes.

The idea that what you wear could have a real impact on how you think or perform in the world is fascinating, bringing new meaning to the expression “dressing for success.”  What else could make us act smarter?  Wearing glasses?  Carrying a briefcase?

As a public health professional, the study results make me think: how can we use enclothed cognition to improve people’s health?  Is there something we can wear to help us make better/healthier choices?  Will putting on our exercise clothes really motivate us to go for that run or get to that exercise class?  And how can we facilitate access to these types of clothes for everyone, not just those who can afford them?  Beyond exercise, how can this effect be used to help us stick to our health resolutions or follow through on those behaviors that we know are better for us?