ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2016
Scientific Message Translation and the Heuristic Systematic Model: Insights for Designing Educational Messages About Progesterone and Breast Cancer Risks.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the general public's view of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing and their interpretation of DTC website disclaimer messages.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2023Article
- Futile or fertile? The effect of persuasive strategies on citizen engagement in COVID-19 vaccine-related tweets across six national health departments.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2023Article
- How Do African-American Community Members' Perceptions About Environmental Risks of Breast Cancer Compare with the Current State of the Science?Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Article
- Evaluating the Feasibility of Continuing Medical Education for Disseminating Emerging Science on the Breast Cancer and Environment Connection.Journal of health communication · 2021Article
- Persuasive Features of Scientific Explanations: Explanatory Schemata of Physical and Psychosocial Phenomena.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Epigeneti-What? Approaches on Translating Research for Primary Breast Cancer Prevention.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Results of ongoing scientific research on environmental determinants of breast cancer are not typically presented to the public in ways they can easily understand and use to take preventive actions. In this study, results of scientific studies on progesterone exposure as a risk factor for breast cancer were translated into high and low literacy level messages. Using the heuristic systematic model, this study examined how ability, motivation, and message processing (heuristic and systematic) influenced perceptions of risk beliefs and negative attitudes about progesterone exposure among women who read the translated scientific messages. Among the 1254 participants, those given the higher literacy level message had greater perceptions of risk about progesterone. Heuristic message cues of source credibility and perceived message quality, as well as motivation, also predicted risk beliefs. Finally, risk beliefs were a strong predictor of negative attitudes about exposure to progesterone. The results can help improve health education message design in terms of practitioners having better knowledge of message features that are the most persuasive to the target audiences on this topic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.