Healthcare Self-Management Tools: Promotion or Prevention Regulatory Focus? A Scale (PR-PV) Development and Validation

Nieroda, Marzena; Keeling, Kathleen; Keeling, Debbie Isobel

doi:10.1080/10696679.2015.980174

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Jin (2012) examined the effect of prevention regulatory focus on self-concealment tendency within the context of e-health communication. Acknowledging the importance of regulatory fit for consumer product choice within healthcare, Nieroda, Keeling, and Keeling (2015) developed a scale to measure objects' inherent promotion/ prevention characteristics. The authors found that regulatory fit, where an individual's product orientation matches their perception of a product's orientation (i.e., promotion or prevention), results in a higher intended effort, thereby enhancing tool uptake.…”

Section: Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Health Experience: A Regulatory Focus Perspective

O’Connor¹,

Myrden²,

Alkire³

et al. 2021

Journal of Interactive Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Health Experience: A Regulatory Focus Perspective

O’Connor¹,

Myrden²,

Alkire³

et al. 2021

Journal of Interactive Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although decision aids like REACT are typically categorized as preventative devices [43], users also desire that they have health promotion aspects: to be encouraging and emphasize positive, gain-framed outcomes [43,44]. Furthermore, the results indicate the need to emphasize the scientific evidence for REACT and show the need to build associations of expert knowledge and trustworthiness in relation to this new intervention, noted previously as important in health-related websites [21,37].…”

Section: User-friendly Website Designmentioning

confidence: 89%

Online Decision Support Tool for Personalized Cancer Symptom Checking in the Community (REACT): Acceptability, Feasibility, and Usability Study (Preprint)

Nieroda¹,

Lophatananon²,

McMillan³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRaising public awareness of cancer symptoms, and consequently early cancer detection remains a challenge in the United Kingdom (UK) and worldwide. Research suggests that presenting health information with individual risk estimation could improve uptake of preventative behaviours. A decision aid enabling personalized symptom-based cancer risk estimation offered in a community setting could improve public's self-awareness of cancer symptoms. Such an aid could motivate individuals to present to their General Practitioners (GPs) with symptoms. In this paper we report research in relation to design and development of the REACT (Risk Estimation for Additional Cancer Testing) website, a tool to be used in a community setting allowing users to fill in an online questionnaire and obtain personalized cancer symptom-based risk estimation. ObjectivesTo evaluate: (1) the acceptability of REACT among public and healthcare professionals; (2) the usability of the REACT website; (3) the presentation of personalised cancer risk on the website; and (4) potential approaches to adopt the REACT into community healthcare services in the UK. MethodsFocus groups, involving a trial of the REACT website, with members of public (n = 15) and healthcare providers (pharmacists, NHS Health Check workers, a local Prevention and Early Intervention group including GPs) in the UK (n = 20) were utilised to evaluate the website 1 and perceived usefulness of such a tool. User experiences were collected by the think-aloud approach when participants using the website were asked to talk about their perceptions and feelings in relation to the website. ResultsThe results demonstrate a need for such a tool, reflected by both members of public and healthcare professionals. Participants suggest the best way to offer access to such a tool is through a guided approach, with a healthcare practitioner (e.g., Pharmacist or NHS Health Check nurse) present during the process of risk evaluation. User feedback has been used to inform the development of the website. The most important aspects were: simplicity, ability to evaluate multiple cancers, content emphasizing an inviting community "feel", use (when possible) of layperson language in the symptom screening questionnaire, and a robust and positive approach to cancer communication relying on visual risk representation both with affected individuals and the entire population at risk. Multiple iterations of the content, layout, and alterations to symptom-based risk presentation of website were undertaken. ConclusionsThis study illustrates the benefits of involving public and stakeholders in developing and implementing a simple cancer check tool within community. It also offers insights and design suggestions for user-friendly interfaces of similar healthcare web-based services, especially those involving personalized risk estimation.

show abstract

“…We assume that most physicians are focused on preventing harm when thinking about high-risk medications. We will include a questionnaire designed to assess whether individuals are promotion- or prevention-focused which has been validated in patient population [ 38 ]; we have adapted this tool to focus on healthcare professional behaviour. Responses will we be used to assess whether respondents’ regulatory focus moderates the effect of the feedback framing intervention.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing feedback message framing and comparators to address prescribing of high-risk medications in nursing homes: protocol for a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAudit and feedback (AF) interventions that leverage routine administrative data offer a scalable and relatively low-cost method to improve processes of care. AF interventions are usually designed to highlight discrepancies between desired and actual performance and to encourage recipients to act to address such discrepancies. Comparing to a regional average is a common approach, but more recipients would have a discrepancy if compared to a higher-than-average level of performance. In addition, how recipients perceive and respond to discrepancies may depend on how the feedback itself is framed. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of different comparators and framing in feedback on high-risk prescribing in nursing homes.MethodsThis is a pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, cluster-randomized controlled trial testing variations in the comparator and framing on the effectiveness of quarterly AF in changing high-risk prescribing in nursing homes in Ontario, Canada. We grouped homes that share physicians into clusters and randomized these clusters into the four experimental conditions. Outcomes will be assessed after 6 months; all primary analyses will be by intention-to-treat. The primary outcome (monthly number of high-risk medications received by each patient) will be analysed using a general linear mixed effects regression model. We will present both four-arm and factorial analyses. With 160 clusters and an average of 350 beds per cluster, assuming no interaction and similar effects for each intervention, we anticipate 90% power to detect an absolute mean difference of 0.3 high-risk medications prescribed. A mixed-methods process evaluation will explore potential mechanisms underlying the observed effects, exploring targeted constructs including intention, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, descriptive norms, and goal prioritization. An economic analysis will examine cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the publicly funded health care system.DiscussionThis protocol describes the rationale and methodology of a trial testing manipulations of theory-informed components of an audit and feedback intervention to determine how to improve an existing intervention and provide generalizable insights for implementation science.Trial registration NCT02979964 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0615-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Healthcare Self-Management Tools: Promotion or Prevention Regulatory Focus? A Scale (PR-PV) Development and Validation

Cited by 6 publications

References 42 publications

Digital Health Experience: A Regulatory Focus Perspective

Digital Health Experience: A Regulatory Focus Perspective

Online Decision Support Tool for Personalized Cancer Symptom Checking in the Community (REACT): Acceptability, Feasibility, and Usability Study (Preprint)

Testing feedback message framing and comparators to address prescribing of high-risk medications in nursing homes: protocol for a pragmatic, factorial, cluster-randomized trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About