| Literature DB >> 21599875 |
W Douglas Evans1, Kevin C Davis, Cindy Umanzor, Kajal Patel, Munziba Khan.
Abstract
Parent-child communication about sex is an important proximal reproductive health outcome. But while campaigns to promote it such as the Parents Speak Up National Campaign (PSUNC) have been effective, little is known about how messages influence parental cognitions and behavior. This study examines which message features explain responses to sexual communication messages. We content analyzed 4 PSUNC ads to identify specific, measurable message and advertising execution features. We then develop quantitative measures of those features, including message strategies, marketing strategies, and voice and other stylistic features, and merged the resulting data into a dataset drawn from a national media tracking survey of the campaign. Finally, we conducted multivariable logistic regression models to identify relationships between message content and ad reactions/receptivity, and between ad reactions/receptivity and parents' cognitions related to sexual communication included in the campaign's conceptual model. We found that overall parents were highly receptive to the PSUNC ads. We did not find significant associations between message content and ad reactions/receptivity. However, we found that reactions/receptivity to specific PSUNC ads were associated with increased norms, self-efficacy, short- and long-term expectations about parent-child sexual communication, as theorized in the conceptual model. This study extends previous research and methods to analyze message content and reactions/receptivity. The results confirm and extend previous PSUNC campaign evaluation and provide further evidence for the conceptual model. Future research should examine additional message content features and the effects of reactions/receptivity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21599875 PMCID: PMC3117765 DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-8-15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
PSUNC advertisement message strategies
| Objective | Target Audience | Strategy | Message | Title | Dominant Voice and POV of Execution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Encourage and educate parents on how to talk to their children in a natural and effective manner about waiting to have sex | Parents of children 11-14 | Appeal to personal sense of responsibility | Parents, don't wait to talk to your kids | "Talk to Me" | Kids |
| Address common defenses | Your relationship with your child will not be lost | "Muffin-head" | |||
| You can't always be in control | "Gadgets" | Parents | |||
| Bringing up the subject won't trigger difficult situation. | "Mime" |
Factor Analysis Results
| Message Reaction/Receptivity Scale Items | Factor Loadings | Chronbach's Alpha |
|---|---|---|
| This ad is convincing | .58 | .86 |
| Would you say the ad grabbed your attention? | .60 | .85 |
| Would you say the ad gave you good reasons to talk to your kids about sexual activity? | .57 | .87 |
| Did you talk to your friends or other adult family members (not your child[ren]) about this ad? | .73 | .78 |
| Did you talk to your child(ren) about the ad? | .71 | .80 |
| Would you say this ad said something important to you? | .64 | .83 |
Logistic regression of Message Receptivity on Content Index
| Outcomes | OR | 95% CI | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| R/R scale (Mimes) | 0.989 | (0.913, 1.071) | 0.7832 |
| R/R scale (Gadget) | 0.881 | (0.792, 0.980) | 0.8708 |
| R/R scale (Muffinhead) | 0.990 | (0.913, 1.073) | 0.6948 |
| R/R scale (Radio) | 0.992 | (0.913, 1.078) | 0.7084 |
Note: Model controls for child gender; parent marital status; highest educational attainment; race/ethnicity; parent age; employment status; family structure; whether child had computer, cable television, or Internet in his/her bedroom; metropolitan statistical area urban status; parental involvement.
Logistic Regression of PSUNC Cognitive Outcomes by Advertisement on Message Receptivity (R/R scale)
| Mimes advertisement | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes (Reference = Low) | OR | 95% CI | p-value |
| Wait Until Older Norm Index | 0.992 | (0.782, 1.257) | 0.9441 |
| Efficacy Scale | 1.073 | (0.959, 1.199) | 0.2181 |
| Short-term Expectation Scale | 1.008 | (0.901, 1.128) | 0.8898 |
| Long-term Expectation Scale | 1.063 | (0.943, 1.197) | 0.3178 |
| Wait Until Older Norm Index | 1.017 | (0.804, 1.287) | 0.8859 |
| Efficacy Scale | 0.905 | (0.809, 1.012) | 0.0804 |
| Short-term Expectation Scale | 1.034 | (0.923, 1.158) | 0.5649 |
| Long-term Expectation Scale | 0.890 | (0.789, 1.004) | 0.0572 |
| Wait Until Older Norm Index | 0.965 | (0.748, 1.245) | 0.7848 |
| Efficacy Scale | 0.898 | (0.798, 1.011) | 0.0753 |
Note: Model controls for child gender; parent marital status; highest educational attainment; race/ethnicity; parent age; employment status; family structure; whether child had computer, cable television, or Internet in his/her bedroom; metropolitan statistical area urban status; and parental involvement.