McCaul Kevin D, Johnson Rebecca J, Rothman Alexander J
Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Fargo 58105, USA.
Health Psychol. 2002 Nov;21(6):624-8. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.21.6.624.
The authors tested the effects of cues to action--messages intended to increase flu immunizations. North Dakota counties were randomly assigned to reminder letters, action letters, or no letters. Within the reminder-letter counties, Medicare recipients received either (a) a reminder from the state peer review organization (PRO) to obtain a flu shot or (b) a reminder from the PRO, framed either in terms of the loss associated with failing to get a shot or (c) the benefits associated with getting a shot. Within the action-letter counties, Medicare recipients leaned where and when to receive a flu shot. Reminder type failed to differentially affect the immunization rate (overall M = 24.5%). However, the action messages worked better (28.2%) than no message (19.6%).
作者测试了行动提示（旨在增加流感疫苗接种率的信息）的效果。北达科他州的各县被随机分配为接收提醒信、行动信或不接收信件。在接收提醒信的县中，医疗保险受益人要么（a）收到州同行评审组织（PRO）的提醒去接种流感疫苗，要么（b）收到PRO的提醒，其表述方式要么是未接种疫苗所带来的损失，要么（c）是接种疫苗所带来的益处。在接收行动信的县中，医疗保险受益人了解到何处以及何时接种流感疫苗。提醒类型未能对疫苗接种率产生差异影响（总体均值M = 24.5%）。然而，行动信息比无信息（19.6%）的效果更好（28.2%）。
