Methods of Health Promotion

Question 1

KEATING 2006

Background

Answer 1

Media campaigns are forms of advertising used get info across to public usually to promote healthy behaviours. Funded by World Health Organisation and Government.

Question 2

KEATING 2006

Aim

Answer 2

To asses extent to which a mass media campaign (VISION) focussing on reproductive health and HIV/AIDS prevention resulted in increased awareness and prevention of HIV/AIDS.

Question 3

KEATING 2006

Method

Answer 3

Self report

Question 4

KEATING 2006

Participants

Answer 4

3278 people from three Nigerian states aged 15-49. Stratified sampling.

Question 5

KEATING 2006

Procedure

Answer 5

Interviewed using questionnaire about family planning, sexual activity and exposure to certain media campaigns through radio/TV/health clinics/newspapers. 3 closed questions asked: 1. Have you ever talked with a partner about ways to prevent getting the virus that’s causes AIDS?

2. Can people reduce chances of getting AIDS by using condom every time they have sex?
3. Did you use condom in last sexual counter?

Question 6

KEATING 2006

Results

Answer 6

Exposure to media campaigns was high, those exposed
As likely to know that condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection.
Exposure to VISION had no effect on condom use during last sexual intercourse.

Question 7

KEATING 2006

Conclusion

Answer 7

VISION did you increase awareness and communication of HIV/AIDS. But increased knowledge had no effect on condom use. Different media reached different people.
Practical advice about how to obtain condoms should be included in future.

Question 8

WAKEFIELD 2000

Background

Answer 8

Legislation is a means by which authorities create a set of enforceable rules which may inhibit or promote healthy behaviours. Vary from country to country. Eg buying cigarettes at 18.

Question 9

WAKEFIELD 2000

Aim

Answer 9

To determine relationship between the extent of restrictions on smoking at home, in school and in public places and smoking uptake and prevalence among students.

Question 10

WAKEFIELD 2000

Method

Answer 10

Self report

Question 11

WAKEFIELD 2000

Participants

Answer 11

Random sample of 17287 from 202 school in US ages 14-17. One school in each county.

Question 12

WAKEFIELD 2000

Procedure

Answer 12

Questionnaire asked info if the adults in the home were smokers, how smoking was restricted at home, whether banned at school and if so how well enforced. Restrictions to smoking in public places was added. Participants were sorted in 6 categories based on stage of smoking uptake:

1. Non-susceptible non-smokers
2. Susceptible non-smokers
3. Early experimenters
4. Advanced experimenters
5. Established smokers
6. Current smokers

Question 13

WAKEFIELD 2000

Results

Answer 13

Not developing smoking habit was significantly linked to parent-enforced restrictions at home, legal restrictions in public places and school enforced bans.
Home smoking bans were more effective than legal bans in public places.
School bans were associated with 11% reduction in uptake across all 6 stages.

Question 14

WAKEFIELD 2000

Conclusion

Answer 14

Findings consistent with other research showing that parental opposition to smoking and banning in home reduces uptake in teenagers.
Legal restrictions in public and school bans have more modest effects and only when strictly enforced.

Question 15

RUITER 2001

Background

Answer 15

Fear arousal is used to increase an individual’s levels of emotional tension, with the idea being that the individual will then change their behaviour to reduce this tension.

Question 16

RUITER 2001

Aim

Answer 16

To examine the effect of fear arousal on attitudes towards participating in early detection activities for breast cancer.

Question 17

RUITER 2001

Method

Answer 17

Lab experiment using independent measures

Question 18

RUITER 2001

Participants

Answer 18

88 females, first year undergraduates in Netherlands, mean age 20, volunteers.

Question 19

RUITER 2001

Procedure

Answer 19

Completed questionnaire to assess pre-experimental attitude to breast self-examination.
Read message about threat of breast cancer(manipulation of fear low or mild), then self report on fear arousal. Then read persuasive message about performing monthly breast self-examinations(weak or strong arguments; ‘perform as its pleasurable’ ‘you can detect cancer at earlier treatable stage’).
Questionnaire administered to asses post-experimental attitude towards self-examination.(DV)
Random allocation to low vs mild fear alongside weak vs strong argument.

Question 20

RUITER 2001

Results

Answer 20

Main effect of manipulated fear wasn’t significant, main effect was from argument strength, suggesting argument based messages are more effective than fear.
Participants who expressed low fear did not differ significantly.

Question 21

RUITER 2001

Conclusion

Answer 21

Evoked fear motivates people into more argument based processing. However they accept the findings may only be applicable to breast self-examination and not all health detection behaviours.