| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| natzeh |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 1:01:41 PM
I really dont get this piece of research and if anyone can help I would be over the moon. Its for my final piece at uni. If you email me a can email the article to u its only 3 pages and all i need is for someone to help me understand what the results mean. Thank natzeh@hotmail.com
An Experimental Investigation of the Emotional and Motivational Impact
Results
Summaries of mean scores and results of the main analyses
are presented in Table 1. The sample comprised 174
students (with power to detect medium-to-large effects
between groups) with a mean age of 14.3 years; one student
declined participation on the day of testing, and one other was
excluded from analysis having already received the vaccine.
Seventy-nine percent of students self-identified as Caucasian
British, 8% as Asian/Asian British, and 13% as ‘‘mixed’’/
‘‘other’’ ethnicities.
Students given HPV information demonstrated significantly
more HPV knowledge (F ¼ 31.2; p < .001) than either
the Chlamydia (p < .001) or environmental (p < .001)
groups. Mean STAI scores did not differ by information
condition (F ¼ .57, p ¼ .59).
Post hoc comparisons revealed that HPV information was
rated as significantly more interesting (p ¼ .03), scary
(p ¼ .007), and reassuring (p < .001) than the environmental
information but not the Chlamydia information (respectively,
p ¼ .55, p ¼ .85, and p ¼ .41).
Students had positive intentions toward HPV testing (91%
likely/very likely), vaccination (82% likely/very likely), andcervical screening (91% likely/very likely). There were
significant between-group differences in intentions to attend
cervical screening (F ¼ 3.1, p ¼ .05) and accept HPV vaccination
(F ¼ 3.1, p ¼ .05), but not in intentions to have an
HPV test (p ¼ .09). HPV vaccination and testing were better
accepted by the HPV than the environmental group (respectively,
p ¼ .02, p ¼ .03), but not more so than the Chlamydia
group.
|
|
|
