IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v17y1983i11p741-746.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experiments to increase return in a medical screening drive: Two futile attempts to apply theory to practice

Author

Listed:
  • Roberts, Michael C.
  • Wurtele, Sandy K.
  • Leeper, James D.

Abstract

Two experiments are reported which attempted to apply techniques derived from an extensive set of psychological theories and research to enhance return compliance in a tuberculosis detection drive. Experiment 1 manipulated four methods of providing return reminders (postcard, telephone call, direct person-to-person or take-home card) in combination with two types of authority sources (expert vs nonexpert). Experiment 2 manipulated types of patient commitment (verbal, verbal plus written or no commitment) and importance-or-returning message (enhanced vs standard) in combination with two types of return reminders (take-home card vs no reminder card). These theoretically-derived procedures failed to significantly enhance return compliance. The experiments are examined for procedural failures and the findings are discussed in terms of the limited applicability of some theoretical notions in health settings and particular populations. It is asserted that through such failures useful knowledge is gained for understanding the complex phenomenon of compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberts, Michael C. & Wurtele, Sandy K. & Leeper, James D., 1983. "Experiments to increase return in a medical screening drive: Two futile attempts to apply theory to practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(11), pages 741-746, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:11:p:741-746
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(83)90262-9
    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:17:y:1983:i:11:p:741-746. 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.