| Literature DB >> 16111502 |
Asim Saha1, Era Poddar, Minal Mankad.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Every individual mode of health education has its own merits, drawbacks as well as their own sphere of effectiveness. A specific mode of communication is more useful in a specific setting on a specific group than others. To search for optimum mode of communication for a specific audience is a major area of research in health education. The issue of imparting health education to a gathering of educated people, representing different fields of knowledge has remained a relatively less lighted aspect of health education research. In this backdrop this study was initiated for making a comparative assessment of different methods of dissemination of health education among educated people.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2005 PMID: 16111502 PMCID: PMC1199606 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-5-88
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Opinion of the study subjects regarding effectiveness of communication.
| Main/Sectional Programme | Sectional Programme was better | 86(60.6) | χ2 = 12.68; p < 0.001 |
| Main Programme was better | 56(39.4) | ||
| Main Programme | Lecture was best | 85(59.9) | χ2 = 70.46; p < 0.001 |
| Symposium was best | 17(11.9) | - | |
| Exhibition was best | 40(28.2) | χ2 = 10.78; p < 0.01 | |
| Sectional Programme | Lecture was better | 92(65.7) | χ2 = 27.66; p < 0.001 |
| Symposium was better | 48(34.3) | ||
| Lectures of Main Programme | Specific topic was better | 96(67.6) | χ2 = 35.21; p < 0.001 |
| Broad topic was better | 46(32.4) | ||
| Symposia of Main Programme | Specific topic was better | 82(57.7) | χ2 = 6.82; p < 0.01 |
| Broad topic was better | 60(42.3) | ||
| Exhibition | Exhibits were better | 88(62.0) | χ2 = 16.28; p < 0.001 |
| Posters were better | 54(38.0) | ||
Distribution of odds ratio in relation to different contributing factors (univariate analysis)
| Covariates | Choice of Main/ Sectional Programme (Sectional better) | Assessment of Main Programme (Symposium Better) | Assessment of Sectional Prog. (Symposium better) | Assessment of Exhibition (Exhibit better) |
| Higher Qualification | 3.19 (1.38 – 7.45) | 2.5 NS | 2.92 (1.27 – 6.82) | 1.13 NS |
| Higher Designation | 2.17 NS | 1.17 NS | 2.77 (1.15 – 6.82) | 1.27 NS |
| Medical Background | 0.2 NS | _____ | 1.9 NS | 6.43 (1.09 – 48.98) |
| Coherence of the Speakers in Symposium | NA | 32.0 (6.28 – 220.10) | 43.0 (13.45 – 146.12) | NA |
NS = Non Significant, NA = Not Applicable, Figures within parenthesis indicate 95% Confidence Interval.
Covariates like age>40, attending alone, problem of understanding English, urban background, absence of physical barriers like noise-congestion-invisibility did not show any significant impact on the choices of the study participants. Choices like lecture in main programme better, exhibition in main programme better, lecture in sectional programme better, specific topic in main programme symposium better and specific topic in main programme lecture better were independent of all the covariates.
Distribution of odds ratio in relation to different contributing factors (multivariate analysis)
| Covariates Choice of Main/ | Sectional Programme (Sectional better) | Assessment of Main Programme Symposium better | Assessment of Main Prog. Symposium (Specific topic better) | Assessment of Main Prog. Lecture (Specific topic better) | Assessment of Sectional Prog. (Symposium better) | Assessment of Exhibition (Exhibit better) |
| Age | NS | NS | p < 0.001, Reg. Co-eff. = 0.1842 | p < 0.001, Reg. Co-eff. = 0.1641 | NS | NS |
| Higher Qualification | 9.1 (1.20–17.01) | 40.62 (14.12 – 67.12) | 1.57 | 0.67 | 3.71 | 0.65 |
| Medical Background | 0.1 | 0.06 | 0.32 | ___ | 2.82 | 19.75 (10.34 – 29.16) |
| Absence of Noise, Congestion, Invisibility | 3.46 (1.09–5.82) | 0.02 | 0.51 | 0.47 | 0.57 | 7.78 (2.36 – 13.21) |
| Coherence of the Speakers in Symposium | NA | 105.79 (95.91–115.68) | NA | NA | 308.77 (301.39 – 316.14) | NA |
NS = Non Significant, NA = Not Applicable, Figures within parenthesis indicate 95% Confidence Interval.
Covariates like higher designation, attending alone, problem of understanding English and urban background did not show any significant impact on the choices of the study subjects. Choices like lecture in main programme better, exhibition in main programme better and lecture in sectional programme better were independent of all the covariates.