Interventions and Public Health Flashcards
Identify what is meant by a universal prevention intervention.
- Interventions aimed at everyone.
- Public health campaigns are usually universal (although they may have elements of being more selective).
Identify what is meant by selective prevention interventions.
- aimed at groups who may be particularly at risk.
Identify what is meant by indicated prevention interventions.
- aimed at people already showing early signs of symptoms.
What are Public Health Campaigns?
- interventions that raise public awareness of important health issues.
- Encourage the public to adopt behaviours which promote good health
- Encourage the public to avoid behaviours which may be damaging to health.
State examples of behaviours that may be damaging to health.
- Exercise
- Nutrition
- Stress reduction
- Health screening
- Using available health services appropriately
What is the meaning of a policy?
Related to the goals of a government or society.
Outlines what a government intends to do (and what it does not intend to do) and what it wants to achieve.
Develops the methods and principles for achieving it’s goal.
Involves documents, not laws, although it may lead to new laws.
What is meant by a Law?
A set of standards, principles, and procedures that must be followed in society.
Used for implementing and maintaining justice in a society.
Many different types including criminal law, civil law, international law etc
Identify the advantages of Public Health Campaigns.
Reaches lots of people
Changing social norms
More targeted campaigns may miss people
Can be backed up by laws, policy etc.
Identify the disadvantages of Public Health Campaigns.
Difficult to measure the effectiveness
Does it really reach everyone equally?
Difficult to change behaviour
Not individualised
Does education work?
Does fear arousal work?
Expensive
Describe an example of a Public Health Intervention to change behaviour.
NHS Health Development Agency (2004)
Increasing knowledge and awareness of risks or knowledge and awareness of services to help prevent risks.
Changing attitudes and motivations
Increasing physical or interpersonal skills
Changing beliefs and perceptions
Influencing social norms
Changing structural factors and influencing the wider determinants of health.
Influencing the availability and accessibility of health services.
What is most effective?
NHS Health Development Agency (2004)
Using theoretical models in developing interventions.
Intervening at multiple levels when appropriate.
Targeted and tailored, making use of needs assessment or formative research.
Providing basic, accurate information through clear, unambiguous messages.
Using behavioural skills training, including self-efficacy.
Joining up services with other community provisions.
Working with community members as advocates of appropriate services.
Providing alternative choices and risk reduction rather than simply telling people not to do something.
Addressing peer norms and social pressures
Describe the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) (Social Norms).
The core variables (attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control) shape an individuals intentions regarding whether or not to engage in a certain behaviour or not.
Our behavioural intentions are the thing most likely to determine whether or not we actually do engage in a behaviour or not.
Factors which impact on whether I will change my behaviour include my perceptions of whether valued others think I should perform the behaviour, as well as my own motivation to comply with the beliefs of others.
Describe the Theory of Normative Social Behaviour (Rimal and Real, 2005) (Social norms)
Behaviour can be changed via normative mechanisms including:
An individuals belief about the prevalence of a behaviour (descriptive norms).
An individuals belief about what they feel they should do based on others expectations e.g. beliefs about the importance of social approval (injunctive norms).
Outline the history behind the seatbelts (The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents)
1930s: Several US doctors equip their own cars with seat belts
1955: Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) appoints Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Committee
Late 1950s – early 1960s: Car manufacturers started to offer seatbelts as optional extras in cars
1962: ‘Which?’ strongly advocated belt wearing, revealing that a “first survey” of their effectiveness in Britain showed they would reduce the likelihood of death and serious injury by 60%.
1965: compulsory to fit seat belts in the front of cars built in Europe BUT not compulsory to wear
1970s: first TV commercials
Outline the history behind the seatbelts (The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents)
1970s - 2000
1970s: first TV commercials BUT no substantial increase in seat belt wearing
1983: compulsory for drivers and passengers to wear seat belts for a three-year trial period.
1986: Both Houses of Parliament vote overwhelmingly in favour of the requirement to wear seat belts becoming permanent at end of 3 year period
1987: cars having rear seatbelts becomes compulsory (but not wearing them)
1991: Wearing rear seat belts becomes compulsory
2000: Think! Was officially established as the governments road safety campaign
What are the impacts of not wearing seatbelts
Department of Transport data shows the percentage of people who died in road traffic
accidents and were not wearing seat belts
rose from 19% in 2013 to 27% in 2017
Young people, rear seat passengers, short journeys still leading to lower seat belt wearing
Has the introduction of seatbelts encouraged people to use them?
no, low seat-belt wearing rates (Dept of Transport, 2008):
Young men, and men in general
Rear-seat passengers
Goods vehicle and company car drivers
Journeys taken late at night or early in the morning
People driving in urban areas with relatively low speed limits.
Define epidemiology
Research into the distribution (e.g. frequency or pattern) and causes of health-related states and events (not just diseases) in different populations.
Many psychologists conduct epidemiological research
What do Think! Campaigns commonly target? (Targeted campaigns)
Wearing rear seat belts (Julie)
Young people (Backwards)
Short journeys in low speed limit areas
Men
Psychological principles at work
Emotive
Social norms
Targeting
Evaluate Think!
The Think! Campaigns aimed to meet 2010 objectives for reducing road deaths and injuries by 40% for adults 50% for children
Achieved target of reduction of road deaths and serious injuries by 40% (50% for children)
Compared with the 1994-98 average by 2010 number killed or seriously injured 44% lower (children 61%)
Evaluate the Think! seatbelt campaign
Department for Transport (2009): Survey of 1956 people aged 15+
84% of respondents recognised at least one of the adverts used in the campaign.
41% of respondents reported that the adverts made them think they should always wear a seatbelt.
11% of respondents agreed the advert was aimed at ‘people like me’.
8% increase in the proportion of 17-34 year olds (19%) who spontaneously mentioned death as a likely consequence of not wearing a seatbelt.
5% increase in the proportion of 17-34 year olds (16%) who spontaneously mentioned serious injury as a likely consequence of not wearing a seatbelt.
70% of adults completely agreed that it was dangerous not to use a seatbelt in the front of a car – lower than at pre-campaign baseline.
85% of adults strongly disagreed that it is safe to travel at 30mph without a seatbelt in the rear of a car – 8% lower than at pre-campaign baseline.
Increase in the proportion of both front and rear seat passengers who said they did not always wear a seatbelt.
No change from pre-campaign baseline in the proportion of drivers who said they did not always wear a seatbelt when driving.
What are confounding variables?
An outside influence which may alter the relationship between the variables you are trying to look at in your research (e.g. between your independent and dependent variable).
What are confounding variables in the case of seatbelts and road safety?
Confounding variables are anything which might have affected road safety or seat belt wearing other than the Think! Campaign between 1994 and 2010.
Achieved target of reduction of road deaths and serious injuries by 40% (50% for children) between 1994 and 2010
BUT
although increases in some beliefs of the dangerousness of not wearing a seatbelt
Decreases in other areas AND more adults saying that they didn’t always wear their seatbelt
Difficulty of evaluation due to confounding variables
Too many things changing at once!
