MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2048745540 · doi:10.1016/j.amjhyper.2004.09.012

Impact of a social marketing media campaign on public awareness of hypertension

2005· article· en· W2048745540 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert J. Petrella, Mark Speechley, Peter Kleinstiver, Terrence D. Ruddy

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of OttawaSt Joseph's Health CentreWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesHealth Canada
Mots-clésMedicineSocial marketingSocial mediaAdvertisingPublic relationsMarketingPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Barriers to high blood pressure (BP) awareness and control are exacerbated by poor knowledge of the consequences and uncertainty regarding how to and who should direct care. We developed a social marketing hypertension awareness program to determine baseline awareness, knowledge, and treatment behavior, and then studied the impact of a targeted, media intervention among randomly surveyed adults at risk in a representative urban community compared to a control community immediately and 6 months after the intervention. METHODS: The program consisted of three random-digit telephone surveys conducted in two mid-sized Ontario cities to determine high BP awareness, knowledge, and treatment behavior. Using baseline knowledge and attitudes toward high BP in both communities, a social marketing awareness strategy and mass media intervention campaign incorporating television, radio, print, direct to patient, and interactive techniques was developed and implemented in the test city only. Both test and control cities were resurveyed immediately after and at 6 months post-media intervention to detect change and decay. RESULTS: A sample of 6873 men and women more than 35 years old who were aware of their high BP demonstrated a high prevalence of high BP in the general population ( approximately 34% in both communities). At baseline this population had poor knowledge of their own BP numbers and poor understanding of the diseases related to high BP. Although few considered high BP a health concern, they had good understanding of lifestyle interventions for high BP prevention and control. The number of the respondents who claimed to have high BP increased immediately after intervention in the test city (38%; P < .02), whereas the number of respondents who were treated and uncontrolled decreased (P < .05) compared to control. There was a significant increase in patients' knowledge of consequences and in their perception that they were most responsible for high BP control in the test city (P < .005) compared to control. At 6 months, no further changes were observed in those claiming to have high BP in either city, whereas decay to baseline in those treated but not controlled and those claiming responsibility for their BP control was observed in the test city. No changes were observed in the control city accept for an increase from baseline to 6 months in the percentage claiming to be treated but uncontrolled. We were unable to determine whether the increase in number treated but uncontrolled was due to a higher treatment rate, similar treatment rate but more patients being uncontrolled, or a combination of these scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: High BP is very prevalent in adults and knowledge of lifestyle options for management is encouraging. In the short-term, although our media awareness program increased the number of respondents claiming to have high BP and patient self-efficacy for BP control, this was not maintained. We did not change knowledge of consequences or importantly, the health importance of BP control among those at risk. Hence, in addition to a mass media campaign, attention should be focused on dissemination of awareness knowledge information through medical professionals at the point of care.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,858
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,780

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,059
Tête enseignante GPT0,300
Écart entre enseignants0,241 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations43
Publié2005
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican Journal of HypertensionMême sujetBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesTravaux en français237 207