Trial reportPloS one2021
Pilot randomised controlled trial of the Risk Acceptance Ladder (RAL) as a tool for targeting health communications.
Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImproving adherence to self-protective behaviours is a public health priority. We aimed to assess the potential effectiveness and ease of use of an online version of the Risk Acceptance Ladder (RAL) in promoting help-seeking for cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, insufficient physical activity, or low fruit and vegetable consumption.
methods843 UK adults were recruited, of whom 602 engaged in at least one risky behaviour. Those with no immediate plans to change (n = 171) completed a behaviour specific RAL. Participants were randomised to one of two conditions; a short message congruent (on-target, n = 73) or incongruent (off-target, n = 98) with their RAL response. Performance of the RAL was assessed by participants' ability to select an applicable RAL item and reported ease of use of the RAL. Effectiveness was assessed by whether or not participants clicked a link to receive information about changing their target behaviour.
resultsTwo thirds (68.9%, 95% CI = 61.8%-75.3%) of participants were able to select an applicable RAL item that corresponded to what they believed would need to change in order to alter their target behaviour, with 64.9% (95% CI = 57.5%-71.7%) reporting that it was easy to select one option. Compared with the off-target group, participants allocated to the on-target group had greater odds of clicking on the link to receive information (31.5% vs 19.4%; OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.01-4.26).
conclusionThe Risk Acceptance Ladder may have utility as a tool for tailoring messages to prompt initial steps to engaging in self-protective behaviours.
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.