健康促进信息的框架效应在高血压防控中的应用

Application of framing effects of health promotion information in hypertension management

  • 摘要:
    目的 以高血压一级预防为例探索健康促进信息的框架效应对社区居民的行为改变过程及决策平衡的影响。
    方法 采用随机对照试验,选取来自上海市闵行区江川社区卫生服务中心的314名志愿者。采用随机数字表法将研究对象随机分为正性框架组(志愿者阅读的信息表述方式为:戒除不良行为可带来的好处,n=159)和负性框架组(志愿者阅读的信息表述方式为:进行不良行为可带来的危害,n=155)。对研究对象的认知程度(个体在处理信息和解决问题时的思考深度)和未来意愿(个体在处理问题时对未来结果的重视程度)进行调查。在信息框架干预前后评估研究对象的行为改变过程和决策平衡变化。按性别、年龄、认知程度和未来意愿进行分层分析。
    结果 信息框架干预后,正性框架组和负性框架组在行为改变过程总分上均有提升(均P<0.05)。行为改变过程各维度方面,正性框架组在8个维度有提升,而负性框架组在6个维度有提升。信息框架干预前,正性框架组和负性框架组的决策平衡总分差异无统计学意义96.0(88.0, 104.0)比98.0(90.0, 106.0),Z = 1.459,P = 0.144;信息框架干预后,正性框架组和负性框架组在决策平衡总分方面均有提升(均P<0.05),且干预后负性框架组的决策平衡总分高于正性框架组102.0(94.0, 110.0)比99.0(91.0, 108.0),Z = 2.157,P = 0.031。性别分层结果表明,男性和女性干预后行为改变过程总分和决策平衡总分均升高(均P<0.05)。年龄分层显示,年龄<39岁人群,正性框架干预后两项指标(行为改变过程总分和决策平衡总分)均升高,负性框架干预后仅决策平衡改善(均P<0.05);39~55岁人群,正性框架和负性框架干预后均只有行为改变过程改善(均P<0.05);年龄>55岁人群在负性框架干预后两项指标均升高,正性框架干预后仅行为改变过程升高(均P<0.05)。认知水平分层,低认知人群在负性框架和正性框架干预后均仅有行为改变过程总分升高(均P<0.05);中认知人群在负性框架干预后仅决策平衡升高,正性框架干预后两项指标均升高(均P<0.05);高认知人群在正性框架干预后仅行为改变过程升高(P<0.05),负性框架对两项指标均无影响(均P>0.05)。未来意愿分层结果显示,现实导向型人群,在负性框架和正性框架干预后两项指标均升高(均P<0.05);平衡型人群,负性框架干预对两项指标均无影响(均P>0.05),正性框架干预后两项指标均升高(均P<0.05);未来导向型人群,负性框架干预后两项指标均升高(P<0.05),正性框架干预后两项指标变化均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
    结论 健康促进信息的框架效应在高血压一级预防中具有显著作用。正性框架和负性框架均能提升社区居民的行为改变过程和决策平衡总分,但作用侧重点不同:正性框架对行为改变过程影响更广,涉及更多维度;负性框架对决策平衡总分提升更明显。信息框架干预的效果会因性别、年龄、认知水平及未来意愿等因素而有所差异,提示在健康教育和行为干预中,可根据目标人群特征灵活选择信息框架,以优化健康行为促进效果。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective To explore the framing effect of health promotion information on processes of change and decision balance among community residents in the context of primary prevention of hypertension. Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted, enrolling 314 volunteers from Jiangchuan Community Health Service Center, Minhang District, Shanghai. Participants were randomly assigned to either a gain-framed group (positive framing, n=159; information emphasized the benefits of ceasing unhealthy behaviors) or a loss-framed group (negative framing, n=155; information emphasized the harms of engaging in unhealthy behaviors) using a random number table. Participants’ cognitive level (depth of information processing and problem-solving) and future orientation (attention to future outcomes when making decisions) were assessed. Processes of change and decisional balance were evaluated before and after the intervention, and stratified analyses were performed by sex, age, cognitive level, and future orientation.
    Results Both gain-framed and loss-framed interventions led to significant improvements in scores for processes of change (all P<0.05). Regarding subdimensions, 8 dimensions improved in the gain-framed group, whereas 6 dimensions improved in the loss-framed group. Before the intervention, no significant difference was observed in decisional balance scores between the two groups (96.0 88.0, 104.0 vs 98.0 90.0, 106.0, Z = 1.459, P = 0.144). After the intervention, decisional balance score was significant improved in both groups (all P<0.05), and which was higher in the loss-framed group than that in the gain-framed group (102.0 94.0, 110.0 vs 99.0 91.0, 108.0, Z = 2.157, P = 0.031). Stratified analyses by gender showed that both male and female participants exhibited significant improvements in scores for processes of change and decisional balance after intervention. Among different age groups, for people under 39 years old, both indicators (scores for processes of change and decisional balance) increased after intervention in gain-framed group, while only decision balance score improved after intervention in loss-framed group (both P<0.05); for people aged 39 to 55 years, only score for processes of change improved after intervention in both groups (both P<0.05); for people over 55 years old, both indicators increased after intervention in loss-framed group, while only score for processes of change increased after intervention in gain-framed group (both P<0.05). Stratified analyses by cognitive levels showed that in subjects with low-cognition, only score for processes of change increased after intervention in both groups (both P<0.05); in subjects with medium-cognition, only decisional balance score increased after intervention in loss-framed group, while both indicators increased after intervention in gain-framed group (both P<0.05); in subjects with high-cognition, only score for processes of change increased after intervention in gain-framed group (P<0.05), while there were no statistically significant changes in both indicators after intervention in loss-framed group (both P>0.05). Stratified analyses by future orientation showed that in reality-oriented participants, both indicators increased after the intervention in both groups (both P<0.05); in balance-oriented participants, there were no statistically significant changes in both indicators after intervention in loss-framed group (both P>0.05), while both indicators increased after intervention in gain-framed group (both P<0.05); in future-oriented participants, both indicators increased after intervention in loss-framed group (P<0.05), while the change in the two indicators was not statistically significance in the gain-framed group (both P>0.05).
    Conclusions The framing effect of health promotion information plays a significant role in primary prevention of hypertension. Both gain-framed and loss-framed information can improve processes of change and decisional balance scores, but their effects are different: gain-framed information has a broader impact on processes of change across more dimensions, whereas loss-framed information has a more pronounced effect on decisional balance. The effectiveness of framing interventions varies by sex, age, cognitive level, and future orientation, suggesting that tailoring information framing according to target population characteristics may optimize health behavior promotion.

     

/

返回文章
返回