Cli. 1 Healthy Living Flashcards
Becker - AIM?
Health belief model
Use the health belief model to test mothers’ compliance to a drug regime for their child with asthma
Becker - BACKGROUND?
Health belief model
Rosenstock (1966)
To explain why people failed to participate in preventative campaigns for Tuberculosis (using cognitive explanations)
Individual and situational factors = less reductionist
6 elements:
-perceived threat / seriousness / susceptibility
-cost-benefit analysis
-internal/external cues
-demographic variables
Becker - SAMPLE?
Health belief model
111 mothers (17-54 years) Children aged 9 months to 17 years
Becker - METHOD?
Health belief model
Self report
Correlation between beliefs and compliance with asthma medication
Covert blood test (70%) - confirm validity
Becker - PROCEDURE?
Health belief model
Each mother interviewed about their perception of:
-susceptibility (of child to illness)
-seriousness (of asthma)
-inconvenience (how much asthma interfered with life)
-effectiveness of doctors and medicine
Child given covert blood test (70%)
Becker - RESULTS?
Health belief model
Blood tests showed 66% compliance
Supports the health belief model - mothers who feared their child was vulnerable = more likely to comply
Becker - CONCLUSIONS?
Health belief model
The Health Belief Model is useful at predicting and explaining levels of compliance of a medical regime
Becker - EVALUATION?
Health belief model
Individual differences - socio-demographic variables
Holistic - cognitive and social factors
Ignores irrational factors - people aren’t always logical
Not all health behaviours are a rational decision (brushing teeth is a habit)
Low validity - interviews (social bias)
Ethics - covert blood sample of children BUT improves concurrent validity
Reductionist - ignores how adherence will change with age
Correlation - no cause and effect (psychology science) BUT collected quantitative and qualitative data
Useful - can target specific groups for closer monitoring
Rotter - BACKGROUND?
Locus of control
The location an individual places their control over events - internal (they control) or external (outside their control)
Determines whether an individual will seek out healthy lifestyles
3 dimensions:
-internality: extent of internal/external perceived control
-chance: belief that external factors (eg chance) influences health
-powerful others: belief in the control of health professionals
Rotter - AIM?
Locus of control
To test if a reward is more effective if a person believes it was the result of themselves (internal) or other factors (external)
Rotter - SAMPLE?
Locus of control
6 pieces of research about an individual’s perception of how they can control an outcome
Rotter - RESULTS?
Locus of control
Participants who felt they had control - more likely to cope with potential threats
Smokers who gave up smoking (and didn’t relapse) had a higher level of internal locus of control
Rotter - CONCLUSIONS?
Locus of control
Locus of Control affects many of our behaviours
Rotter - EVALUATION?
Locus of control
Deterministic - human behaviour influenced by reinforcement
Ecological validity low - artificial task
Doesn’t have any health related tasks/ill patients so results can’t be generalised to health behaviour
Bandura - BACKGROUND?
Self Efficacy
Developed (by Bandura) from internal locus of control
If we think we can succeed (cope with a threat) we work harder = more likely to succeed
Belief (affects perception and motivation) you can perform well in a situation
More confident = more likely to succeed
4 influences:
-Persuasory: positive feedback
-Enactive: past experiences (eg GCSEs)
-Emotive: mental state (eg anxiety)
-Vicarious: comparing ourselves to others (eg friend)
Bandura - AIM?
Self Efficacy
Assess the self efficacy of patients engaging in systematic desensitisation for snake phobias
Bandura - SAMPLE?
Self Efficacy
10 snake phobic patients (9 female, 1 male)
Mean age: 31
Bandura - METHOD?
Self Efficacy
Quasi (level of fear)
Bandura - PROCEDURE?
Self Efficacy
Level of fear and perception of how well they’d do was measured
Relaxation exercises
Systematic desensitisation:
-shown photos of snakes
-once arousal levels fall, put in same room as snake
-eventually able to handle them
Fear and perception of how well they’d do measured again
Bandura - RESULTS?
Self Efficacy
Second fear score (after systematic desensitisation) were lower.
Coping perception higher
Bandura - CONCLUSIONS?
Self Efficacy
Systematic desensitisation works.
Supports self efficacy
Self efficacy is cognitive (perception affects behaviour) and behavioural (perception is learned from past experiences - nothing happening with snake)
Bandura - EVALUATION?
Self Efficacy
Lab experiment - high control and can test cause and effect
Nature/nurture - self efficacy influenced by personality and environment
Useful - can be applied to disorders
Low ecological validity
Keating - BACKGROUND?
Media campaigns
Get health messages across (TV adverts, posters)
Allow people the choice to choose healthy behaviours
Legislation more authoritarian - prevents people acting unhealthy
Keating - AIM?
Media campaigns
Assess how effective the VISION mass media campaign was at increasing awareness and preventing HIV/AIDS