Health promotion

Aim: To study the motivation effect of fear arousal in health promotions communcations

Sample: freshman yeat calss of a large connecticat high school eaul numbers of males and females average age 15

Method: divided into 4 group- three groups given an illustracted lecture on tooth decay and importance of oral hygione. Forth control group. Form 1: strong fear appeal-empasising the painful consequences, form2 : moderate fear appeal-mild and factual manner and form 3;minial fear applea-rarely alluded consequecnes

-questionaire one week later on lecture, one after and one a week before

Results: Minimal fear appeal - 36% conformity (evidence based on self-report).
Strong fear appeal - 8% conformity- No difference in amount of information in each lecture but the strong apprasied the communication better then the other groups. 0% for control group. 42 somwhat worried and 24 minial fear group

Conclusions: effectiveness of health promotion reduced by the use of strong fear arousal. Fear arroused but never relived by reassurences contained in the communcation and the audience will ignore the importance of the threat.

Aim:An attempt to encourage people to quit smoking was carried out at five worksites.

Method:All the sites received a six-week programme in cognitive behaviour therapy which focused on the skills of giving up. The workers who enrolled in the programmes in four of the sites were put into competing teams, with the workers at the fifth site acting as a control.

Results: At the end of the programme 31 per cent of the people in the programme at the control site and 22 per cent the competition sites had stopped smoking. A follow-up study after six months found that 18 per cent of the control group and 14 per cent of the competition groups had stayed off the cigarettes. This appears to suggest that the control group were doing better than the competition groups, but this was not the case. At the competition sites 88 per cent of the smokers joined the programme, but only 54 per cent did so at the control site, suggesting that the incentive of competition encouraged more people to attempt to give up. When the data was compared for the total number of smokers at each site to give up, there was an overall reduction of 16 per cent at the competition sites and only 7 per cent at the control site

Conclusions: Reducing smoking was sucessful but some people went back to smothing.

Parry et al (2000) evluated a smocking ban, non smokers backed up the smoking ban becuase of them enhaling smoke, they could create deligated smoking areas unpopula amoung non-smokers- waste of money. Once implemented led to some recutions of smokinginside buildings, smokers cograted outside entraces, became more viasble, accumulation of depris and sympathy for smokers increased. In conclusions reducing smoking pollution did not work.

Aim- Evluate the efectiveness ofthe safety central intiated by the centre for childhood safety on the pacific north west of the usa 1997

Sample:five schools (11 teachers 284 students 54 girls) using safety program for last two years- four observation sites: two had taken part, two who had not and controls. Observations carried out around or in schools or in park

Method:90% owned a bike helmet, 84% children from schools that did participate and 16% from ones that didn'ts, children in 4 th grade who used the safety program were more likely to wear a helmet.55% knew points were a helmet had to fit anmd obsrvations not useful only a few bike rides observed.

Conclusions: safety central program important in teaching safety messages to children and can reatin information for 2 years - booster session in year 6

- Concern that 50% avoid injury by knowing how to fall

-initiatives aimed at encrogaing children to attrubute cycling injuries more externally by stressing the limited control held by individuals in an accident would be useful.