Department of Health Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Cancer Prevention and Control, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 25;11(1):e041324. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041324.
To advance understanding of how message framing can be used to maximise public support across different pricing policies for alcohol, tobacco and sugary drinks/foods that prevent consumption of cancer-causing products.
We designed a 3×4×3 randomised factorial experiment to test responses to messages with three pricing policies, four message frames and three products.
Online survey panel (Qualtrics) in 2019.
Adults (N=1850) from the UK and USA.
Participants randomly viewed one of 36 separate messages that varied by pricing policy (increasing taxes, getting rid of price discounts, getting rid of low-cost products), four frames and product (alcohol, tobacco, sugary drinks/foods).
We assessed the relationship between the message characteristics and four dependent variables. Three were related to policy support: (1) increasing taxes on the product mentioned in the message, (2) getting rid of price discounts and special offers on the product mentioned in the message and (3) getting rid of low-cost versions of the product mentioned in the message. One was related to reactance, a psychological response to having one's freedom limited.
We found no effect for pricing policy in the message. Frames regarding children and reducing cancer risk moderated some outcomes, showing promise for real-world use. We found differences in support by product and reactance with greatest support and least reactance for tobacco policies, less support and more reactance for alcohol policies, and the least support and most reactance for sugary drinks/foods policies.
Cancer prevention efforts using policy interventions can be informed by the message framing literature. Our results offer insights for cancer prevention advocacy efforts across the UK and USA and highlight that tax versus non-tax approaches to increasing the cost of cancer-causing products result in similar responses from consumers.
增进对如何利用信息框架在不同的酒精、烟草和含糖饮料/食品定价政策中最大限度地获得公众支持的理解，这些政策旨在防止致癌产品的消费。
我们设计了一个 3×4×3 的随机因子实验，以测试对三种定价政策、四种信息框架和三种产品的信息的反应。
2019 年在线调查小组（Qualtrics）。
来自英国和美国的成年人（N=1850）。
参与者随机查看了 36 条单独信息中的一条，这些信息在定价政策（提高税收、取消价格折扣、取消低价产品）、四种框架和产品（酒精、烟草、含糖饮料/食品）方面有所不同。
我们评估了信息特征与四个因变量之间的关系。其中三个与政策支持有关：（1）对信息中提到的产品征收更多的税，（2）取消信息中提到的产品的价格折扣和特别优惠，（3）取消信息中提到的低价产品。一个与反应性有关，这是对个人自由受到限制的一种心理反应。
我们没有发现信息中的定价政策有任何效果。关于儿童和降低癌症风险的框架调节了一些结果，这为现实世界的应用提供了希望。我们发现产品和反应性的支持存在差异，烟草政策的支持最大，反应性最小，酒精政策的支持较小，反应性较大，含糖饮料/食品政策的支持最小，反应性最大。
利用政策干预措施进行癌症预防工作可以参考信息框架文献。我们的结果为英国和美国的癌症预防宣传工作提供了见解，并强调了对致癌产品增加成本的税收与非税收方法对消费者的反应相似。
