ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2018
Affective stimuli in behavioural interventions soliciting for health check-up services and the service users' socioeconomic statuses: a study at Japanese
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocioeconomically vulnerable people are likely to have more health risks because of inadequate behaviour choices related to chronic social stresses. Brain science suggests that stress causes cognitively biased automatic decision making, preferring instant stress relief and pleasure (eg, smoking, alcohol use and drug abuse) as opposed to reflectively seeking health-maintenance services (eg, health check-ups). As such, hedonic stimuli that nudge people towards preventive actions could reduce health behaviour disparities. The purpose of this intervention study was to test this hypothesis.
methodsAn instant health check-up service company had 320 health check-up sessions at
resultsEven adjusting for health risks and within-parlour clustering, the intervention sessions gathered more socioeconomically vulnerable customers than the regular sessions. Compared with control sessions, in intervention sessions the adjusted prevalence ratios were 1.15 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.35) for not having a job (vs having a job) and 1.36 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.86) for holders of National Health Insurance (which includes more socially vulnerable people than other insurance programmes).
conclusionThe results supported our hypothesis. Offering health check-up opportunities equipped with 'tricks' that nudge people to act might be effective for anyone but is potentially more valuable for socially vulnerable people. Ethical discussions are needed to further consider the use of erotic stimuli and other essential drivers of human behaviour.
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.