IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v18y1984i10p881-888.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of public education about breast cancer and breast self-examination

Author

Listed:
  • Siero, Sjef
  • Kok, Gerjo
  • Pruyn, Jean

Abstract

In a field experiment severity of and susceptibility to breast cancer were varied in four different persuasive messages about breast cancer and breast self-examination (BSE). The purpose of this study was to find out whether such health messages in a real-life setting had an effect on knowledge about symptoms, attitudes and behavior relating to BSE. The second goal of this study was to investigate whether fear, aroused by these persuasive communications, had a significant role in influencing the recommended behavior (BSE). In spite of a successful manipulation of seriousness and susceptibility no differences for the dependent variables could be established between the experimental groups after one month. However, differences were found by comparing the experimental groups with the no health message group. After reading the pamphlet (no matter which of the four) women showed greater intention to perform BSE regularly. This could be attributed to a higher estimation of the chance of recovery through early detection of lumps (efficacy) after reading the pamphlet. The health messages also appeared to have a positive influence on compliance with recommended behavior: women examined their breasts more in the prescribed way. An inhibiting effect of fear on behavior (which is sometimes theoretically suggested) was not found. The effects of the pamphlet that were established are formed in a more informational, cognitive way.

Suggested Citation

  • Siero, Sjef & Kok, Gerjo & Pruyn, Jean, 1984. "Effects of public education about breast cancer and breast self-examination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 18(10), pages 881-888, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:18:y:1984:i:10:p:881-888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(84)90157-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:18:y:1984:i:10:p:881-888. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.