Mary Kay Rayens1, Karen M Butler2, Amanda T Wiggins2, Ganna Kostygina2, Ronald E Langley3, Ellen J Hahn2. 1. Tobacco Policy Research Program, College of Nursing and College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY; mkrayens@uky.edu. 2. Tobacco Policy Research Program, College of Nursing and College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY; 3. Survey Research Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Low-cost media campaigns increase demand for smoke-free policies in underserved rural areas. The study examined the impact of loss- and gain-framed smoke-free print ads on recall and perceived effectiveness in rural communities, controlling for personal characteristics. METHODS: Following 6- to 9-month print media campaigns in three rural counties, recall and perceived effectiveness of loss-framed (ie, targeting dangers of secondhand smoke [SHS]) and gain-framed (ie, highlighting positive aspects of smoke-free air) ads were assessed using random-digit-dial phone surveys. Respondents were asked if they remembered each ad, whether they liked it, whether they were prompted to contact a smoke-free coalition, whether the ad made them think, and whether it prompted emotion. Mixed modeling assessed whether personal factors predicted ad recall or perceived effectiveness. RESULTS: Loss-framed ads were less likely to be recalled but more likely to prompt emotion. For ads of both frame types, females reported greater recall and perceived effectiveness than males. Those with less education reported higher perceived effectiveness of the ads but lower recall. Nonsmokers were more likely than smokers to perceive the ads as effective. Knowledge of SHS risk and support for smoke-free workplaces were positively associated with recall and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Ad recall and perceived effectiveness were associated with framing and demographic and personal characteristics. Smoke-free efforts in rural areas may be bolstered by continuing to promote benefits of smoke-free workplace policies and educate on SHS risks. Rural areas may need to provide a combination of ad types and framing strategies to appeal to a wide audience. IMPLICATIONS: Rural communities are disproportionately affected by SHS and less likely to be protected by smoke-free policies. This study adds evidence-based guidance for tailoring rural smoke-free media campaigns using different framing: gain-framed messages (ie, benefits of smoke-free environments) to promote recall and loss-framed content (ie, dangers of SHS) to prompt emotion. Further, gain-framed messages that are localized to the rural community may be especially effective. Findings support designing smoke-free campaigns in rural communities with the audience in mind by tailoring messages to age, sex, and education level.
INTRODUCTION: Low-cost media campaigns increase demand for smoke-free policies in underserved rural areas. The study examined the impact of loss- and gain-framed smoke-free print ads on recall and perceived effectiveness in rural communities, controlling for personal characteristics. METHODS: Following 6- to 9-month print media campaigns in three rural counties, recall and perceived effectiveness of loss-framed (ie, targeting dangers of secondhand smoke [SHS]) and gain-framed (ie, highlighting positive aspects of smoke-free air) ads were assessed using random-digit-dial phone surveys. Respondents were asked if they remembered each ad, whether they liked it, whether they were prompted to contact a smoke-free coalition, whether the ad made them think, and whether it prompted emotion. Mixed modeling assessed whether personal factors predicted ad recall or perceived effectiveness. RESULTS: Loss-framed ads were less likely to be recalled but more likely to prompt emotion. For ads of both frame types, females reported greater recall and perceived effectiveness than males. Those with less education reported higher perceived effectiveness of the ads but lower recall. Nonsmokers were more likely than smokers to perceive the ads as effective. Knowledge of SHS risk and support for smoke-free workplaces were positively associated with recall and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Ad recall and perceived effectiveness were associated with framing and demographic and personal characteristics. Smoke-free efforts in rural areas may be bolstered by continuing to promote benefits of smoke-free workplace policies and educate on SHS risks. Rural areas may need to provide a combination of ad types and framing strategies to appeal to a wide audience. IMPLICATIONS: Rural communities are disproportionately affected by SHS and less likely to be protected by smoke-free policies. This study adds evidence-based guidance for tailoring rural smoke-free media campaigns using different framing: gain-framed messages (ie, benefits of smoke-free environments) to promote recall and loss-framed content (ie, dangers of SHS) to prompt emotion. Further, gain-framed messages that are localized to the rural community may be especially effective. Findings support designing smoke-free campaigns in rural communities with the audience in mind by tailoring messages to age, sex, and education level.
Authors: Donna M Vallone; Jennifer C Duke; Jennifer Cullen; Kristen L McCausland; Jane A Allen Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Karen M Butler; Mary Kay Rayens; Sarah Adkins; Rachael Record; Ronald Langley; Stephanie Derifield; Carolyn McGinn; Deborah Murray; Ellen J Hahn Journal: Public Health Nurs Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 1.462
Authors: Frances A Stillman; Anne M Hartman; Barry I Graubard; Elizabeth A Gilpin; David M Murray; James T Gibson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2003-11-19 Impact factor: 13.506