Kathleen J Porter1, Yvonnes Chen2, Hannah G Lane3, Jamie M Zoellner4. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Christiansburg, VA. Electronic address: kjporter@virginia.edu. 2. William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. 3. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Christiansburg, VA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To inform the implementation of media production activities with adult populations by describing the construction of counter-advertisements (counter-ads) within a behavioral intervention. METHODS: SIPsmartER participants could create 2 types of counter ads during the intervention's media literacy lesson. Participants (n = 40) were from rural southwestern Virginia. Most were female (85%) and white (93%), and 28% were low health literate. Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were used to compare completion rates, content, techniques used, and persuasive intent with counter ad type and health literacy status. RESULTS: Each participant produced 2.1 (SD, 0.8) counter-ads. Ads included health risks (64%) and nutrition facts (16%). The majority used persuasive techniques (72%) and were persuasive for drinking fewer sugar-sweetened beverages (72%). There were differences by type but not health literacy status. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings suggested that counter-ads can be used in behavioral interventions for adults. Guidance is provided to support their implementation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To inform the implementation of media production activities with adult populations by describing the construction of counter-advertisements (counter-ads) within a behavioral intervention. METHODS: SIPsmartER participants could create 2 types of counter ads during the intervention's media literacy lesson. Participants (n = 40) were from rural southwestern Virginia. Most were female (85%) and white (93%), and 28% were low health literate. Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact tests were used to compare completion rates, content, techniques used, and persuasive intent with counter ad type and health literacy status. RESULTS: Each participant produced 2.1 (SD, 0.8) counter-ads. Ads included health risks (64%) and nutrition facts (16%). The majority used persuasive techniques (72%) and were persuasive for drinking fewer sugar-sweetened beverages (72%). There were differences by type but not health literacy status. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings suggested that counter-ads can be used in behavioral interventions for adults. Guidance is provided to support their implementation.
Authors: Jamie Zoellner; Wen You; Carol Connell; Renae L Smith-Ray; Kacie Allen; Katherine L Tucker; Brenda M Davy; Paul Estabrooks Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2011-07
Authors: Frances E Thompson; Timothy S McNeel; Emily C Dowling; Douglas Midthune; Meredith Morrissette; Christopher A Zeruto Journal: J Am Diet Assoc Date: 2009-08