Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19709989›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2009

The effect of credibility-related design cues on responses to a web-based message about the breast cancer risks from alcohol: randomized controlled trial.

Peter R Harris, Elizabeth Sillence, Pamela Briggs

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. An e-health solution for people with alcohol problems.Alcohol research & health : the journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism · 2011
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Peter R HarrisPsychology Department, University of Sheffield, Western Bank, UK. p.harris@sheffield.ac.uk
Elizabeth Sillence
Pamela Briggs

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternet sites typically contain visual design elements that are unrelated to the quality of the health information presented but that could influence credibility judgments and responses to health advice. To assess the effects of such design elements, or credibility cues, experimentally, we exposed women with different levels of weekly alcohol consumption to a website containing high quality but unpalatable information about a related health risk (breast cancer). The information was presented alongside either positive or negative credibility cues unrelated to information content.

objectivesWe explored four research questions: (1) Did the cues influence how the women engaged with the site? (2) Did they influence how the women responded cognitively and emotionally? (3) Did they influence whether the women subsequently acted on the advice? (4) Did the impact of the cues vary with how much alcohol the women reported drinking?

methodA total of 85 women were randomly assigned to view one of two versions of a website containing the same high-quality content but different cues. One version had positive credibility cues (trustmarks), the other had negative ones (adverts, pharmaceutical sponsorship, and a donation button). Objective measures included visual attention (using eye-tracking equipment), time studying the material, and recall. Subjective measures included cognitive and affective responses and intention to change. Measures of subsequent behavior were taken 1 week later.

resultsFirst, the cues did not affect how long the women spent on the site or how long they spent reading the text. However, women in the negative cues condition spent more time looking at a donation button than those in the positive cues condition spent looking at a TRUSTe seal (beta = -.43, P < .001) but less time looking at a logo (beta = .43, P < .001) or at certain other features of the site. Those in the negative cues condition also recalled more site content (beta = -.22, P = .048). Second, there were no effects of the cues on any of the measures of cognition, affect, vulnerability, or intentions. However, third, at follow-up, the positive cues had promoted greater alcohol reduction than the negative cues among those women who had previously reported drinking more heavily (beta = -.22, P = .02). So, fourth, the responses to the cues did vary with how much alcohol the women typically drank.

conclusionsContent-irrelevant images and logos can influence the behavioral response to quality health-risk information. These effects may be subtle, changing with time.

Indexed as

CuesInternetReproducibility of ResultsTruth DisclosureAdolescentAdultAlcohol DrinkingAttentionAttitudeBreast NeoplasmsEye MovementsFemaleHumansReadingSelf ConceptSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID19709989
PMCPMC2762857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.