Exploring the interaction of patient activation and message design variables: Message frame and presentation mode influence on the walking behavior of patients with type 2 diabetes
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2012
Exploring the interaction of patient activation and message design variables: Message frame and presentation mode influence on the walking behavior of patients with type 2 diabetes
Examining interpersonal (physician-patient) communication strategies for promoting walking exercise to patients with type 2 diabetes assigned to primary care clinics, the study evaluated two message design variables—frame and presentation mode—as influencers of communication and adoption success. The single-site, four-week, prospective intervention study followed a 2×3 factorial, non-equivalent comparison group quasi-experimental design. Results showed frame was significantly related to steps walked; however, when including patient activation as an interaction, frame was non-significant. The model including patient activation interactions, however, detected significant mode effects on behavior. Results provide evidence that statistics are most effectively used with activated patients.
AbhyankarPO’ConnorDBLawtonR. (2008). The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: Evidence of a loss-frame advantage. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 13(1), 1–16.
2.
American Diabetes Association (ADA). (2009). Standards of medical care in diabetes – 2009. Diabetes Care, 32, S13–S61.
3.
AroraRAroraA (2004). The impact of message framing and credibility finding for nutritional guidelines. Services Marketing Quarterly, 26(1), 35–53.
4.
BartelsRDKellyKMRothmanAJ (2010). Moving beyond the function of the health behavior: The effect of message frame on behavioural decision making. Psychology & Health, 25(7), 821–838.
5.
BravataDMSmith-SpanglerCSundaramVGiengerALLinNLewisRStaveCDOlkinISirardJR (2007). Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(19), 2296–2304.
6.
BrownSMCulverJOOsannKEMacDonaldDJSandSThorntonAAGrantM. (2011). Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates. Patient Education and Counseling, 83, 92–98.
7.
ChristophersenE RGyulayJE (1981). Parental compliance with car seat usage: A positive approach with long-term follow-up. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 6, 301–312.
8.
ChuaHFYatesJKShahP (2006). Risk avoidance: Graphs versus numbers. Memory and Cognition, 34(2), 399–410.
9.
DetweilerJ BBedellB TSaloveyPProninERothmanA J (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beachgoers. Health Psychology, 18, 189–196.
10.
EdwardsAElwynGMulleyA (2002). Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 324(7341), 827–830.
11.
EngelLLindnerH (2006). Impact of using a pedometer on time spent walking in older adults with type 2 diabetes. The Diabetes Educator, 32(1), 98–107.
12.
GallagherKMUpdegraffJARothmanAJSimsL (2011). Perceived susceptibility to breast cancer moderates the effects of gain- and loss-framed messages on use of screening mammography. Health Psychology, 30(2), 145–152.
13.
HeveyDPertlMThomasKMaherLCraigANi ChuinneagainS (2010). Body consciousness moderates the effect of message framing on intentions to use sunscreen. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(4), 553–559.
14.
HibbardJHMahoneyEStockardJTuslerM (2005). Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure (PAM). Health Services Research, 40(6), 1918–1930.
15.
HibbardJHStockardJMahoneyERTuslerM (2004). Development of the patient activation measure (PAM): Conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Services Research, 39(4), 1005–1026.
16.
HigginsE TIdsonL CFreitasA LSpiegelSMoldenD C (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1140–1153.
17.
HsiaHJ (1968). Output, error, equivocation, and recalled information in auditory, visual and audiovisual information processing with constraint and noise. Journal of Communication, 18, 325–353.
18.
HuizingaMMElasyTAWallstonKACavanaughKDavisDGregoryRPFuchsLS. (2008). Development and validation of the Diabetes Numeracy Test. BMC Health Services Research, 8, 96–103.
19.
JonesLWSinclairRCCourneyaKS (2003). The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: And integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 179–196.
20.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39 (4), 341–350.
21.
KalichmanSCColeyB (1995). Context framing to enhance HIV-antibody-testing messages targeted to African American women. Health Psychology, 14, 247–254.
22.
KirkABarnettJLeeseGMutrieN (2009). A randomized trial investigating the 12-month changes in physical activity and health outcomes following a physical activity consultation delivered by a person or in written form in Type 2 diabetes: Time2Act. Diabetic Medicine: A Journal of The British Diabetic Association, 26(3), 293–301.
23.
LatimerA ERiversS ERenchT AKatulakN AHicksAHodorowskiJ KHigginsE T. (2008). A field experiment testing the utility of regulatory fit messages for promoting physical activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 826–832.
24.
LeeA YAakerJ L (2004). Bringing the Frame Into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218.
25.
LipkusIM (2007). Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 27, 696–713.
26.
LockwoodPJordanCHKundaZ (2002). Motivation by Positive or Negative Role Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864.
27.
MarteauTMSaidiGGoodburnSLawtonJMichieSBobrowM (2000). Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting negatives results to pregnant women. Prenatal Diagnosis, 20, 714–718.
28.
Meyers-LevyJMaheswaranD (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 159–167.
29.
MillarM GMillarK (2000). Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 853–856.
30.
NenkovGYInmanJJHullandJMorrinM (2009). The impact of outcome elaboration on susceptibility to contextual and presentation biases. Journal of American Marketing Research, 46, 764–776.
31.
OhA.ShaikhA.WatersE.AtienzaA.MoserR. P.PernaF. (2010). Health Disparities in Awareness of Physical Activity and Cancer Prevention: Findings from the National Cancer Institute’s 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). Journal of Health Communication, 15(supp 3), 60–77.
32.
O’KeefeDJJensenJD (2011). The relative effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed persuasive appeals concerning obesity-related behaviors: Meta-analytic evidence and implication. In BatraR.KellerP.A.StrecherV.J. (Eds.), Leveraging consumer psychology for effective health communications: The obesity challenge (pp. 171–185). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
33.
OsbornCYCavanaughKWallstonKARothmanRL (2010). Self-efficacy links to health literacy and numeracy to glycemic control. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 146–158.
34.
PettyR ECacioppoJ TGoldmanR (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.
35.
RiversS ESaloveyPPizarroD APizarroJSchneiderT R (2005). Message framing and pap test utilization among women attending a community health clinic. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 65–77.
36.
RothmanA JSaloveyP (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3–19.
37.
RothmanAJBartelsRDWlaschinJSaloveyP (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, S202–S220.
38.
SaloveyPWegenerDT (2003). Communication about health: Message framing, persuasion, and health behavior. In SulsJ.WallstonK.A. (Eds.), Social psychological foundations of health and illness (pp. 54–81). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
39.
SchapiraMMNattingerABMcAuliffeAL (2006). The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 569–582.
40.
SlaterM DRounerD (1996). Value-affirmative and value-protective processing of alcohol education messages that include statistical evidence or anecdotes. Communication Research, 23, 210–235.
41.
StoneERYatesJFParkerAM (1997). Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed risk-taking behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 243–256.
42.
StryckerLADuncanSCChaumetonNRDuncanTEToobertDJ (2007). Why werimental Psychology: Reliability of pedometer data in samples of youth and older women. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4, 4.
TimmermansDRMOckhuysen-VermeyCFHennemanL (2008). Presenting health risk information in different formats: The effect on participants’ cognitive and emotional evaluation and decisions. Patient Education and Counseling, 73, 443–447.
45.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, New Series, 211(4481), 453–458.
46.
WilliamsGCMcGregorHZeldmanAFreedmanZRDeciELElderD (2005). Promoting glycemic control through diabetes self-management: evaluating a patient activation intervention. Patient Education and Counseling, 56, 28–34.
