Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psychology > Cli. 1 Healthy Living > Flashcards

Cli. 1 Healthy Living Flashcards

(62 cards)

Start Studying
0
Q

Becker - AIM?

Health belief model

A

Use the health belief model to test mothers’ compliance to a drug regime for their child with asthma

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Becker - BACKGROUND?

Health belief model

A

Rosenstock (1966)
To explain why people failed to participate in preventative campaigns for Tuberculosis (using cognitive explanations)
Individual and situational factors = less reductionist
6 elements:
-perceived threat / seriousness / susceptibility
-cost-benefit analysis
-internal/external cues
-demographic variables

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Becker - SAMPLE?

Health belief model

A 
111 mothers (17-54 years)
Children aged 9 months to 17 years
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Becker - METHOD?

Health belief model

A

Self report
Correlation between beliefs and compliance with asthma medication
Covert blood test (70%) - confirm validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Becker - PROCEDURE?

Health belief model

A

Each mother interviewed about their perception of:
-susceptibility (of child to illness)
-seriousness (of asthma)
-inconvenience (how much asthma interfered with life)
-effectiveness of doctors and medicine
Child given covert blood test (70%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Becker - RESULTS?

Health belief model

A

Blood tests showed 66% compliance

Supports the health belief model - mothers who feared their child was vulnerable = more likely to comply

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Becker - CONCLUSIONS?

Health belief model

A

The Health Belief Model is useful at predicting and explaining levels of compliance of a medical regime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Becker - EVALUATION?

Health belief model

A

Individual differences - socio-demographic variables
Holistic - cognitive and social factors
Ignores irrational factors - people aren’t always logical
Not all health behaviours are a rational decision (brushing teeth is a habit)
Low validity - interviews (social bias)
Ethics - covert blood sample of children BUT improves concurrent validity
Reductionist - ignores how adherence will change with age
Correlation - no cause and effect (psychology science) BUT collected quantitative and qualitative data
Useful - can target specific groups for closer monitoring

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Rotter - BACKGROUND?

Locus of control

A

The location an individual places their control over events - internal (they control) or external (outside their control)
Determines whether an individual will seek out healthy lifestyles
3 dimensions:
-internality: extent of internal/external perceived control
-chance: belief that external factors (eg chance) influences health
-powerful others: belief in the control of health professionals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Rotter - AIM?

Locus of control

A

To test if a reward is more effective if a person believes it was the result of themselves (internal) or other factors (external)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Rotter - SAMPLE?

Locus of control

A

6 pieces of research about an individual’s perception of how they can control an outcome

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Rotter - RESULTS?

Locus of control

A

Participants who felt they had control - more likely to cope with potential threats
Smokers who gave up smoking (and didn’t relapse) had a higher level of internal locus of control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Rotter - CONCLUSIONS?

Locus of control

A

Locus of Control affects many of our behaviours

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Rotter - EVALUATION?

Locus of control

A

Deterministic - human behaviour influenced by reinforcement
Ecological validity low - artificial task
Doesn’t have any health related tasks/ill patients so results can’t be generalised to health behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Bandura - BACKGROUND?

Self Efficacy

A

Developed (by Bandura) from internal locus of control
If we think we can succeed (cope with a threat) we work harder = more likely to succeed
Belief (affects perception and motivation) you can perform well in a situation
More confident = more likely to succeed
4 influences:
-Persuasory: positive feedback
-Enactive: past experiences (eg GCSEs)
-Emotive: mental state (eg anxiety)
-Vicarious: comparing ourselves to others (eg friend)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Bandura - AIM?

Self Efficacy

A

Assess the self efficacy of patients engaging in systematic desensitisation for snake phobias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Bandura - SAMPLE?

Self Efficacy

A

10 snake phobic patients (9 female, 1 male)

Mean age: 31

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Bandura - METHOD?

Self Efficacy

A

Quasi (level of fear)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Bandura - PROCEDURE?

Self Efficacy

A

Level of fear and perception of how well they’d do was measured
Relaxation exercises
Systematic desensitisation:
-shown photos of snakes
-once arousal levels fall, put in same room as snake
-eventually able to handle them
Fear and perception of how well they’d do measured again

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Bandura - RESULTS?

Self Efficacy

A

Second fear score (after systematic desensitisation) were lower.
Coping perception higher

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Bandura - CONCLUSIONS?

Self Efficacy

A

Systematic desensitisation works.
Supports self efficacy
Self efficacy is cognitive (perception affects behaviour) and behavioural (perception is learned from past experiences - nothing happening with snake)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Bandura - EVALUATION?

Self Efficacy

A

Lab experiment - high control and can test cause and effect
Nature/nurture - self efficacy influenced by personality and environment
Useful - can be applied to disorders
Low ecological validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Keating - BACKGROUND?

Media campaigns

A

Get health messages across (TV adverts, posters)
Allow people the choice to choose healthy behaviours
Legislation more authoritarian - prevents people acting unhealthy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Keating - AIM?

Media campaigns

A

Assess how effective the VISION mass media campaign was at increasing awareness and preventing HIV/AIDS

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Keating - SAMPLE? | Media campaigns
3278 (15-49yrs) 3 Nigerian States 60% married
25
Keating - METHOD? | Media campaigns
Self report
26
Keating - PROCEDURE? | Media campaigns
Interviewed by questionnaire Asked about family planning, sexual activity and exposure to media campaign Asked 3 closed questions: -have you talked to a partner about ways of preventing AIDS? -does condom usage reduce chances of getting AIDS? -did you use a condom last time?
27
Keating - RESULTS? | Media campaigns
Exposure to media campaign was high Women most exposed to adverts in clinic Men to radio adverts -1.5x more likely to have discussed HIV/AIDS -2x more likely to know that condoms reduce risk of HIV/AIDS -No affect on condom usage
28
Keating - CONCLUSIONS? | Media campaigns
VISION increased awareness/understanding of HIV/AIDS Different media reaches different people No affect on condom usage - didn't know where to get them (include in future campaigns)
30
Wakefield - BACKGROUND? | Legislation
Authorities create enforceable rules that inhibit or promote health behaviours Requires effective enforcement More authoritarian than media campaigns
31
Wakefield - AIM? | Legislation
Compare effectiveness of smoking restrictions - home bans, school bans and legal bans
32
Wakefield - SAMPLE? | Legislation
17287 high school students 202 schools in USA 80% of selected students completed the questionnaire
32
Wakefield - METHOD? | Legislation
Self report
33
Wakefield - PROCEDURE? | Legislation
``` Asked if adults at home smoke If smoking banned at home, school (how well enforced) and in public places Sorted into 6 categories: -non susceptible non smokers -susceptible non smokers -early experimenters -advanced experimenters -established smokers -current smokers ```
34
Wakefield - RESULTS? | Legislation
Not developing a smoking habit was linked to home bans (parent restrictions), school bans and public bans Home bans more effective than legal or school bans 11% reduction in smoking uptake due to school bans (still effective)
35
Wakefield - CONCLUSIONS? | Legislation
Consistent with other research Parental opposition reduced uptake of teen smoking Legal restrictions and school bans less effective
36
Ruiter - BACKGROUND? | Fear arousal
Fear arousal used in many health promotion campaigns | Increase emotional tension so that individual must change their behaviour to reduce the tension
37
Ruiter - AIM? | Fear arousal
Examine effect of fear arousal on attitudes towards taking part in early detection for breast cancer
38
Ruiter - SAMPLE? | Fear arousal
88 female undergraduates (1st year) University in the Netherlands Mean age: 20 Volunteer sample
39
Ruiter - METHOD? | Fear arousal
Lab Independent measures: -low/mild fear -strong/weak argument
40
Ruiter - PROCEDURE? | Fear arousal
Questionnaire - asses pre-experimental attitude to breast self-examination Effectiveness of several educational messages about breast cancer (low or mild fear) evaluated Read a persuasive message about performing monthly breast exam checks (weak or strong argument) Questionnaire to assess post-experimental attitude Fear - level of implied severity Random allocation to 2x2 condition
41
Ruiter - RESULTS? | Fear arousal
Low effectiveness of manipulated fear Argument strength was more effective Argument based messages more effective than fear
42
Ruiter - CONCLUSIONS? | Fear arousal
Evoked fear causes people to have more argument based processing Only applicable to breast self examination - not all health detection
43
Bulpitt - BACKGROUND? | Reasons for non-adherence
Valid reasons not to adhere: - don't believe treatment is working - unpleasant side effects - confused about how much to take - too expensive - withdraw to 'see if the illness is still there'
44
Bulpitt - AIM? | Reasons for non-adherence
Review research on adherence to hypertensive (high blood pressure) medication
45
Bulpitt - METHOD? | Reasons for non-adherence
Review article of research identifying problems with taking medication
45
Bulpitt - PROCEDURE? | Reasons for non-adherence
Statistical analysis of physical and psychological effects of adherence
46
Bulpitt - RESULTS? | Reasons for non-adherence
``` 15% dropped out due to side effects: -sleepiness -dizziness -lack of sexual functioning -lower cognitive functioning 8% dropped out due to sexual problems ```
47
Bulpitt - CONCLUSIONS? | Reasons for non-adherence
When the cost of taking the medication outweigh the perceived benefits there is less likelihood of the patient adhering
48
Lustman - BACKGROUND? | Measures of adherence
Ways to measure adherence: - self report - asking patient about how compliant they have been - health worker estimates - asking a doctor to 'guesstimate' how complient the patient is - biochemical tests - blood and urine tests - pill and bottle counts - number of pills left compared to how many here should be
49
Lustman - AIM? | Measures of adherence
See if there's a link between depression and non-adherence to diabetic medication
50
Lustman - SAMPLE? | Measures of adherence
60 diabetic patients with depression | Volunteer sample
51
Lustman - METHOD? | Measures of adherence
Randomised double blind study
52
Lustman - PROCEDURE? | Measures of adherence
Patients randomly assigned to fluoxetine (depression treatment) or placebo (double blind) Depression assessed using psychometric tests Adherence assessed through blood sugar levels
53
Lustman - RESULTS? | Measures of adherence
After 8 weeks: -Fluoxetine group had healthier blood glucose levels (adherence) and lower levels of depression -Less depression (fluoxetine) = more regularly monitored blood glucose levels
54
Lustman - CONCLUSIONS? | Measures of adherence
Measuring blood sugar levels in patients with diabetes indicates adherence Less depression = greater adherence Not being anxious or depressed improves compliance
55
Watt - BACKGROUND? | Improving adherence
Non adherence: - can be fatal - expensive - wasted medication - require follow up measures
56
Watt - AIM? | Improving adherence
To see if funhaler improves children's adherence to asthma medication
57
Watt - SAMPLE? | Improving adherence
32 Australian children (10m and 22f) | Asthmatic
58
Watt - PROCEDURE? | Improving adherence
Repeated measures: -normal 'breath-a-tech' -funhaler Each used for 1 week and parent answers questionnaire
59
Watt - RESULTS? | Improving adherence
Adherence to asthma medication increases by 38% using the funhaler than the breath-a-tech'
60
Watt - CONCLUSIONS? | Improving adherence
Previous research suggests forgetfulness and boredom influenced non-adherence Funhaler solves this and encourages correct usage of the inhaler with a spinner and whistle Making the medical regime fun can improve adherence in children

Psychology (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions