Effective or ineffective: Attribute framing and the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 81, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2010, Pages

  Bigman, Cabral A ^a   Cappella, Joseph N ^a   Hornik, Robert C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Attribute framing; Cervical cancer; Framing; HPV; Human papillomavirus; Vaccination; Vaccine mandate

Indexed keywords

WART VIRUS VACCINE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CANCER IMMUNIZATION; CANCER PREVENTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG USE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT PLANNING; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VACCINE PRODUCTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTENTION; MIDDLE AGED; PAMPHLETS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINES; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; SOCIAL MARKETING; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VACCINATION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78649631702     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.08.014     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Internet] HPV Vaccine Questions and Answers; 2006, August. Retrieved June 21, 2008 from http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/hpv-vaccine.pdf.
2. Anhang R., Goodman A., Goldie S.J. HPV communication: review of existing research and recommendations for patient education. CA Cancer J Clin 2004, 54:248-259.
3. Tiro J.A., Meissner H.I., Kobrin S., Chollette V. What do women in the U.S. know about human papillomavirus and cervical cancer?. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 2007, 16:228-294.
4. Zimet G.D., Liddon N., Rosenthal S.L., Lazcano-Ponce E., Allen B. Psychosocial aspects of vaccine acceptability. Vaccine 2006, 24S3:S3201-S3209.
5. Constantine N.A., Jerman P. Acceptance of human papillomavirus vaccination among Californian parents of daughters: a representative statewide analysis. J Adolesc Health 2007, 40:108-115.
6. Schwartz J.L., Caplan A.L., Faden R.R., Sugarman J. Lessons from the failure of human papillomavirus vaccine state requirements. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007, 82:760-763.
7. Colgrove J. State of immunity: the politics of vaccination in twentieth-century America 2006, University of California Press, Berkeley.
8. Zimet G.D., Mays R.M., Winston Y., Kee R., Dickes J., Su L. Acceptability of human papillomavirus immunization. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2000, 9:47-50.
9. Zimet G.D., Mays R.M., Sturm L.A., Ravert A.A., Perkins S.M., Juliar B.E. Parental attitudes about sexually transmitted infection vaccination for their adolescent children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005, 159:132-137.
10. Brewer N.T., Fazekas K.I. Predictors of HPV acceptability: a theory-informed, systematic review. Prev Med 2007, 45:107-114.
11. Anhang R., Stryker J.E., Wright T.C., Goldie S.J. News media coverage of human papillomavirus. Cancer 2004, 100:308-314.
12. Calloway C., Jorgensen C.M., Saraiya M., Tsui J. A content analysis of news coverage of the HPV vaccine by U.S. newspapers, January 2002-June 2005. J Womens Health 2006, 15:803-809.
13. Leader A., Mittermaier D., Cappella J.N. News media coverage of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine: December 2005-November 2006. Poster presented at the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting 2007.
14. Rothman A.J., Bartels R.D., Wlaschin J., Salovey P. The strategic use of gain and loss framed messages to promote healthy behavior: how theory can inform practice. J Commun 2006, 56:s202-s220.
15. Moxey A., O'Connell D.O., McGettigan P., Henry D. Describing treatment effects to patients: how they are expressed makes a difference. J Gen Intern Med 2003, 18:948-959.
16. Edwards A., Elwyn G., Covey J., Matthews E., Pill R. Presenting risk information: a review of the effects of 'framing' and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun 2001, 6:61-82.
17. Levin I.P., Schneider S.L., Gaeth G.J. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1998, 76:149-188.
18. Kahneman D., Tverksy A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-292.
19. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211:453-458.
20. O'Keefe D.J., Jensen J.D. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: a meta-analytic review. J Health Commun 2007, 12:623-644.
21. Linville P.W., Fischer G.W., Fischhoff B. AIDS risk perceptions and decision biases. The social psychology of HIV infection 1993, 5-38. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ. J.B. Pryor, G.D. Reeder (Eds.).
22. Howard Price J. Vaccine to halt cancer endorsed, FDA advisers call it effective. Washington Times; 2006 May 31, Sect. A1. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis database June 26, 2009.
23. Harris G. Panel unanimously recommends cervical cancer vaccine for girls 11 and up. New York Times. 2006, June 30: Sect. A1 (p. 12). Retrieved from Lexis Nexis database July 2, 2007.
24. Griffith D. Some parents not sold on cervical cancer shot. Sacramento Bee; 2006, August 31: Sect. A1. Retrieved from Lexis Nexis database December 15, 2006.
25. Brody J. HPV vaccines: few risks, many benefits. New York Times; 2007, May 15: Sect. F1 (p. 7). Retrieved from Lexis Nexis database July 2, 2007.
26. Donovan R.J., Jalleh G. Positive versus negative framing of a hypothetical infant immunization: the influence of involvement. Health Educ Behav 2000, 27:82-95.
27. O'Connor A.M., Pennie R.A., Dales R.E. Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects experience: the case of influenza immunization. J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49:1271-1276.
28. Gaines B.J., Kuklinski J.H., Quirk P.J. The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Anal 2007, 15:1-20.
29. McNeil B.J., Pauker S.G., Tversky A. On the framing of medical decisions. Decision making descriptive normative and prescriptive interactions 1998, 562-568. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. D.E. Bell, H. Raiffa, A. Tversky (Eds.).
30. O'Connor A.M., Boyd N.F., Tritchler D.L., Kriukov Y., Sutherland H., Till J.E. Eliciting preferences for alternative cancer drug treatments: the influence of framing, medium and rater variables. Med Decis Making 1985, 5:453-463.
31. O'Connor A.M. Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol 1989, 42:119-126.
32. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986, 51:1173-1182.
33. Preacher K.J., Hayes A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput 2004, 36:717-731.
34. Gamson W.A., Modigliani A. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am J Soc 1989, 1:1-37.
35. Scheufele D.A., Lewenstein B.V. The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nano Res 2005, 7:659-667.