Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29144984›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2017

Developing a scale to assess health regulatory focus.

Rebecca A Ferrer, Isaac M Lipkus, Jennifer L Cerully, Colleen M McBride, James A Shepperd, William M P Klein

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. How the UK public views the use of diagnostic decision aids by physicians: a vignette-based experiment.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Having a prevention regulatory focus longitudinally predicted distress and health-protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca A FerrerNational Cancer Institute, United States. Electronic address: ferrerra@mail.nih.gov.
Isaac M LipkusDuke University School of Nursing, United States.
Jennifer L CerullyRAND Corporation, United States.
Colleen M McBrideEmory Rollins School of Public Health, United States.
James A ShepperdUniversity of Florida, United States.
William M P KleinNational Cancer Institute, United States.
National Cancer Institute · USDuke University · USEmory and Henry College · USRAND Corporation · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

Young Smoker's Reactions to Genetic Risk for Lung CancerR01CA121922 · NCI · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LIPKUS, ISAAC M · 2007 to 2011
$1.8M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS R01 CA121922
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleRegulatory focus (i.e., focus on motivation to achieve gains or avoid losses and non-gains) is used to tailor health behavior change interventions, improving efficacy, but is currently assessed by scales that are not health-specific and may capture a version of the construct that is not ideally matched to the rationale for tailoring.

objectiveWe developed and validated a Health Regulatory Focus Scale (HRFS), which assesses tendencies to avoid negative health consequences (prevention focus) or achieve positive health outcomes (promotion focus).

methodsAcross four studies (and a scale development study in supplementary online materials), we established convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity for the HRFS. In studies examining predictive validity, main outcome measures were health behavior intentions, including intentions to reduce alcohol use, quit smoking, eat a healthy diet, exercise, be screened for cancer, and engage in general cancer preventive behaviors.

resultsThe promotion and prevention sub-scales performed well in confirmatory factor analyses. Single-factor models had significantly poorer fit than models delineating promotion and prevention. The sub-scales were differentially (and only modestly) correlated with related constructs (anxiety, optimism, information avoidance, ambiguity/fatalism). Higher HRFS-Promotion focus generally corresponded with greater health behavior intentions. Conversely, higher HRFS-Prevention focus corresponded with lower health behavior intentions. Associations were largely maintained even when controlling for established regulatory focus measures, supporting the assertion that the HRFS would predict unique variance in health behavior intentions.

conclusionThe HRFS has the potential to improve the precision with which framed health messages change behavior, as it may assess a version of regulatory focus that is more ideally matched to rationale for tailoring interventions.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorMotivationSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentFemaleHealth PromotionHumansIntentionMalePreventive MedicineReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultHealth behaviorPrevention motivationPromotion motivationRegulatory focusTailoring interventions

Identifiers

PMID29144984
PMCPMC6211789
OpenAlexW2768982722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.