| Literature DB >> 31237239 |
Liang Chen1, Xiaodong Yang2, Lunrui Fu1, Xiaoming Liu1, Congyi Yuan1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the rise of mobile technology, an increasing number of people use mobile-based social media to access health information. Many scholars have explored the nature of health information on social media; however, the impact of such information on people was understudied.Entities:
Keywords: EPPM; breast cancer; mobile social media; prevention information
Year: 2019 PMID: 31237239 PMCID: PMC6613324 DOI: 10.2196/13987
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ISSN: 2291-5222 Impact factor: 4.773
Descriptive statistics for the number of readings (N=537).
| Presence of threat and efficacy | Mean (SD) | n (%) | |
| Efficacy absent | 4881.70 (3969.35) | 96 (17.9) | |
| Efficacy present | 6303.09 (5061.33) | 299 (55.7) | |
| Total | 5957.64 (4852.52) | 395 (73.6) | |
| Efficacy absent | 5302.03 (6112.63) | 98 (18.3) | |
| Efficacy present | 15457.27 (8247.67) | 44 (8.2) | |
| Total | 8448.72 (8286.11) | 142 (26.4) | |
| Efficacy absent | 5094.03 (5155.45) | 194 (36.1) | |
| Efficacy present | 7477.39 (6346.04) | 343 (63.9) | |
| Total | 6616.36 (6048.11) | 537 (100) | |
Threat×efficacy factorial analysis of variance for the amount of reading.
| Variable | Partial | ||
| Title length | 11.03 (1) | .001 | 0.02 |
| Threat | 62.99 (1) | <.001 | 0.11 |
| Efficacy | 85.87 (1) | <.001 | 0.14 |
| Threat×Efficacy | 51.51 (1) | <.001 | 0.09 |
Figure 1Interaction effect between threat and efficacy upon the number of readings.
Descriptive statistics for the number of likes (N=537).
| Level of threat and efficacy | Mean (SD) | n (%) | |
| Low efficacy | 25.59 (27.71) | 87 (16.2) | |
| Medium efficacy | 29.68 (31.61) | 60 (11.2) | |
| High efficacy | 37.69 (38.18) | 123 (22.9) | |
| Total | 32.01 (33.97) | 270 (50.3) | |
| Low efficacy | 35.63 (43.89) | 30 (5.6) | |
| Medium efficacy | 39.90 (40.21) | 48 (8.9) | |
| High efficacy | 41.84 (43.68) | 81 (15.1) | |
| Total | 40.08 (42.49) | 159 (29.6) | |
| Low efficacy | 15.88 (32.51) | 16 (3.0) | |
| Medium efficacy | 34.04 (83.64) | 23 (4.3) | |
| High efficacy | 68.68 (102.19) | 69 (12.9) | |
| Total | 53.48 (93.08) | 108 (20.1) | |
| Low | 26.68 (32.82) | 133 (24.8) | |
| Medium | 34.19 (47.36) | 131 (24.4) | |
| High | 46.75 (63.18) | 273 (50.8) | |
| Total | 38.72 (53.93) | 537 (100) | |
Threat×efficacy factorial analysis of variance for intention to the number of likes.
| Variable | Partial | ||
| Article length | 10.10 (1) | .002 | 0.02 |
| Video | 0.97 (1) | .32 | 0.00 |
| Threat | 0.65 (2) | .52 | 0.00 |
| Efficacy | 5.45 (2) | .005 | 0.02 |
| Threat×Efficacy | 2.53 (4) | .04 | 0.02 |
Figure 2Interaction effect between threat and efficacy upon the number of likes.