Impacts of gain versus loss frame messages about beverages on boy students, an application of extended parallel process model

Abstract

Background Unhealthy diet including consumption of high amounts of sugar-sweetened beverages is a key modifiable risk factor for obesity and NCDs which begin in childhood and adolescence. The study aimed to compare the effect of gain frame vs. loss frame messages on SSBs consumption intention and behavior of high school boy students. Methods In this quasi-experimental study, 270 students from three boy’s high schools were selected through a multistage random sampling. Data collection was done through a 15 items self-reported questionnaire before and two months after the intervention. Each of the two intervention groups received one of the two types of gain frame or loss frame designed pamphlets inspired with extended parallel process model. The control group received no pamphlet. Results In control, GFM and LFM groups 91, 86 and 89 students participated in the study, respectively. After the intervention, significant differences were observed in perceived efficacy and threat of the GFM group and perceived efficacy, threat and intention in the LFM group compared with before the intervention. The GFM group had higher perceived self-efficacy than the control group and lower perceived severity than the LFM group. Intention to consume SSBs reduced significantly in LFM group, compared with the control group. Conclusions A combination of LFM and GFM messages could more effectively lead to nutritional behavior change regarding the consumption of SSBs. Results help to design messages for educational programs and nutritional campaigns.

Educational intervention based on the extended parallel process model improves adherence to diabetic diet and glycaemic control indices: a randomised, double-blind, controlled, factorial field trial

“…According to the EPPM, since health messages are transmitted to people by various sources and techniques, the interactions between their perceived threat (susceptibility to health danger and its severity) and perceived efficacy (self-efficacy and response efficacy) made them draw conclusions and take action according to the messages. Consequently, one can show no response (believed to be low susceptibility to danger or the severity is low), danger control response (believed to be highly susceptible but has high self-efficacy) and fear control response (highly susceptible and low in efficacy) (10) .…”

“…Message framing majorly affects the audience’s response to health-related education (9) . Both loss-framed and gain-framed messaging are observed to affect health-related behaviours (10) . Loss-framed messaging (LFM) informs about how risky behaviours or not following healthy behaviours may cost or adversely affect health.…”