| Literature DB >> 36011627 |
Jing Yan1, Jing Ji1, Lan Gao2.
Abstract
Interpersonal communication is beneficial in promoting individuals' tendency to accept health-campaign-targeted behavior. Based on the protective action decision model, this study investigated the key factors underlying individual's interpersonal communication on the Gongkuai campaign, which was carried out during Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The main goal of the Gongkuai campaign was to change traditional communal eating habits and reduce public health risks. An online questionnaire survey involving 618 respondents was conducted in China after the 2020 Gongkuai campaign propagated, and the data were analyzed by using the structural equation modeling technique. The results indicated that health campaign exposure is a critical determinant of perceived campaign-related knowledge and health risk perception, which are significant predictors of interpersonal communication. Meanwhile, campaign-related knowledge can elicit risk perception. Furthermore, campaign exposure influenced interpersonal communication in ways that traditional diet culture did not predict. Risk perception was also unaffected by traditional diet culture. It is worth noting that individuals' agreement with traditional diet culture does not hinder health campaign-generated interpersonal communication in the context of public health crisis. Based on the findings, theoretical and policy implications for motivating interpersonal communication were discussed, and research limitations were pointed out.Entities:
Keywords: Gongkuai campaign; health campaign; health risk perception; interpersonal communication; traditional diet culture
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36011627 PMCID: PMC9407717 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19169992
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Psychological Processes of PADM.
Figure 2Research framework of interpersonal communication about Gongkuai campaign.
Figure 3Sample distribution.
Profile information of respondents (n = 618).
| Demographic Characteristic | Frequency | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 317 | 51.3 |
| Female | 301 | 48.7 | |
| Age | Less than 20 | 59 | 9.6 |
| 20–30 | 158 | 25.6 | |
| 31–40 | 188 | 30.4 | |
| 41–50 | 148 | 24.0 | |
| More than 50 | 65 | 10.4 | |
| Education | Senior high school or below | 109 | 17.6 |
| Associate or bachelor’s degree | 318 | 51.5 | |
| Master’s or higher degree | 191 | 30.9 | |
| Monthly | Less than CNY 10,000 | 133 | 21.5 |
| CNY 10,000–15,000 | 208 | 33.6 | |
| CNY 15,001–20,000 | 161 | 26.1 | |
| More than CNY 20,000 | 116 | 18.8 | |
| Residential location | Urban | 257 | 41.6 |
| Suburban | 242 | 39.2 | |
| Rural | 119 | 19.2 | |
Constructs and measurement items.
| Construct | Item | Measurement | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Campaign exposure (CE) | CE1 | I often browsed or heard information about | [ |
| CE2 | I often browse or hear information about | ||
| CE3 | I often browse or hear information about | ||
| Traditional diet culture (TDC) | TDC1 | I believe the shared use of chopsticks is an important traditional diet culture | [ |
| TDC2 | Using serving chopsticks is very different from traditional customs. | ||
| TDC3 | I have a duty to uphold the traditional diet culture of dishes being shared communally | ||
| Campaign-related knowledge (CK) | CK1 | I know | [ |
| CK2 | I have knowledge of how to use serving chopsticks | ||
| CK3 | I know many of the negative aspects of not using serving chopsticks | ||
| Risk perception (RP) | RP1 | I worry about the danger of not using serving chopsticks | [ |
| RP2 | It will be dangerous to dine outside if not using serving chopsticks | ||
| RP3 | Not using utensils will negatively influence my future health | ||
| Interpersonal communication (IC) | IC1 | In the past two months, I have had conversation with my family or friends about | [ |
| IC2 | In the past two months, I have had conversations with any relevant person about | ||
| IC3 | In the past two months, I have actively looked for chances to share my knowledge and thoughts about |
Discriminant validity and descriptive statistics analysis.
| Mean | Standard Deviation | CE | TDC | CK | RP | IC |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CE | 3.69 | 0.72 | 1 | 0.83 | ||||
| TDC | 3.02 | 1.20 | −0.03 | 1 | 0.92 | |||
| CK | 3.75 | 0.77 | 0.55 ** | −0.04 | 1 | 0.77 | ||
| RP | 3.63 | 0.72 | 0.60 ** | −0.04 | 0.44 ** | 1 | 0.81 | |
| IC | 3.60 | 0.72 | 0.67 ** | −0.03 | 0.51 ** | 0.69 ** | 1 | 0.79 |
Note: ** p < 0.01.
Confirmatory factor analysis results.
| Construct | Items | Loadings | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Campaign exposure | CE1 | 0.876 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.69 |
| CE2 | 0.837 | ||||
| CE3 | 0.778 | ||||
| Traditional diet culture | MC1 | 0.855 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.85 |
| MC2 | 0.971 | ||||
| MC3 | 0.914 | ||||
| Campaign-related | CK1 | 0.700 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.60 |
| CK2 | 0.775 | ||||
| CK3 | 0.833 | ||||
| Risk perception | RP1 | 0.822 | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.65 |
| RP2 | 0.809 | ||||
| RP3 | 0.794 | ||||
| Interpersonal | IC1 | 0.771 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 0.63 |
| IC2 | 0.807 | ||||
| IC3 | 0.804 |
Figure 4Results of hypothesis testing. Note: * p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.001.