Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39550610›Full record

Trial reportJournal of health communication2025

A Missing Mechanism of Effect: How People Who Habitually Replot Stories React Differently (Or Not so Differently) to Melanoma Narratives.

Helen M Lillie, Manusheela Pokharel, Jakob D Jensen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of health communication, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Helen M LillieDepartment of Communication Studies, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4355-0929
Manusheela PokharelDepartment of Communication Studies, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9167-4750
Jakob D JensenDepartment of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6959-7090

Funding

Communal Feedback as an Innovative Alternative to Skin Self-ExamDP2EB022360 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI JENSEN, JAKOB DANIEL · 2015 to 2018
$2.5M
NIBIB NIH HHS DP2 EB022360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When stories have undesirable endings, readers often engage in replotting, meaning they imagine alternative plotlines that could change the unwanted ending. Recent research has found that both the cognitive and emotional components of replotting serve as mechanisms of narrative persuasion. Building on this work, the current study assessed if people who habitually replot are more persuaded by a tragic story ending than those who do not, testing hypotheses with melanoma narratives. Cognitive and emotional (i.e., anger, anxiety, sadness, and hope) aspects of replotting were tested as mechanisms of this proposed interaction. Participants (

Indexed as

Health CommunicationMelanomaNarrationPersuasive CommunicationSkin NeoplasmsAdultAgedEmotionsFemaleHumansIntentionMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultemotionmelanomanarrativeReplotting

Identifiers

PMID39550610
PMCPMC11957928

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.