App Ex Psych Readings Mass Media Readings cont.

bethdrysdale94's version from 2017-05-13 11:57


Question Answer
Lavis et al 2003: OverviewFive questions provide an organizing framework for a knowledge-transfer strategy: What should be transferred to decision makers (the message)? To whom should research knowledge be transferred (the target audience)? By whom should research knowledge be transferred (the messenger)? How should research knowledge be transferred (the knowledge-transfer processes and supporting communications infrastructure)? With what effect should research knowledge be transferred (evaluation)? The details of these elements vary according to the target audience.
Lavis et al 2003: four audiences for applied health and economic/social researchgeneral public/service recipients (e.g., citizens, patients, and clients), service providers (e.g., clinicians), managerial decision makers (e.g., managers in hospitals, community organizations, and private businesses), and policy decision makers at the federal, state/provincial, and local levels
Noat et al 2007: Overviewtailored health messages, do they work
Noar et al 2007: preventable deaths. For instance, it is estimated that 2,403,351 individuals died in the United States in 2000; nearly half of these (1,124,000) were due to largely modifiable factors, including the use of tobacco, poor diet and physical inactivity, alcohol consumption, microbial agents (such as influenza and pneumonia), toxic agents (e.g., air pollutants such as asbestos), motor vehicle accidents, firearm injuries, unsafe sexual behavior, and illicit drug use. Such behaviors are major contributors to the development of leading causes of death, such as heart disease, stroke, and numerous cancers (Mokdad et al., 2004, 2005). Moreover, the three key behaviors of tobacco use, unhealthy diet, and lack of physical activity accounted for approximately 71% of the more than 1 million preventable deaths in the year 2000
Noar et al 2007: tailored health message impactVelicer et al. (2006) have argued that even if in-person, clinic-based interventions are more efficacious than population-level tailored interventions, population-level interventions are capable of far greater impact given their potential for wide reach (impact  efficacy times reach; Abrams et al., 1996). Unlike intervention approaches that require in-person visits and/or those that are reactive in nature (e.g., telephone hotlines), tailored interventions can be delivered in a proactive manner and are capable of reaching entire populations
Noar et al 2007: strongest print tailored health behaviour change interventionsthe strongest print tailored health behavior change interventions to date are those that (a) intervened on preventive or screening behaviors; (b) generated pamphlets, newsletters, or magazines (perhaps including visual elements); (c) utilized more than one intervention contact; (d) were conducted with non-U.S. participants; (e) had shorter periods between intervention and follow-up; (f) recruited participants from households rather than clinics or health centers (perhaps because of differences in SES); (g) tailored on 4 –5 theoretical concepts (or more) as well as behavior and demographics; and (h) used a behavioral theory that includes concepts such as attitudes, selfefficacy, stage of change, processes of change, and perhaps social influences (such as social support).