↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Targeted mass media interventions promoting healthy behaviours to reduce risk of non-communicable diseases in adult, ethnic minorities

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
403 Mendeley
Title
Targeted mass media interventions promoting healthy behaviours to reduce risk of non-communicable diseases in adult, ethnic minorities
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011683.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annhild Mosdøl, Ingeborg B Lidal, Gyri H Straumann, Gunn E Vist

Abstract

Physical activity, a balanced diet, avoidance of tobacco exposure, and limited alcohol consumption may reduce morbidity and mortality from non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Mass media interventions are commonly used to encourage healthier behaviours in population groups. It is unclear whether targeted mass media interventions for ethnic minority groups are more or less effective in changing behaviours than those developed for the general population. To determine the effects of mass media interventions targeting adult ethnic minorities with messages about physical activity, dietary patterns, tobacco use or alcohol consumption to reduce the risk of NCDs. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, SweMed+, and ISI Web of Science until August 2016. We also searched for grey literature in OpenGrey, Grey Literature Report, Eldis, and two relevant websites until October 2016. The searches were not restricted by language. We searched for individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series studies (ITS). Relevant interventions promoted healthier behaviours related to physical activity, dietary patterns, tobacco use or alcohol consumption; were disseminated via mass media channels; and targeted ethnic minority groups. The population of interest comprised adults (≥ 18 years) from ethnic minority groups in the focal countries. Primary outcomes included indicators of behavioural change, self-reported behavioural change and knowledge and attitudes towards change. Secondary outcomes were the use of health promotion services and costs related to the project. Two authors independently reviewed the references to identify studies for inclusion. We extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in all included studies. We did not pool the results due to heterogeneity in comparisons made, outcomes, and study designs. We describe the results narratively and present them in 'Summary of findings' tables. We judged the quality of the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. Six studies met the inclusion criteria, including three RCTs, two cluster-RCTs and one ITS. All were conducted in the USA and comprised targeted mass media interventions for people of African descent (four studies), Spanish-language dominant Latino immigrants (one study), and Chinese immigrants (one study). The two latter studies offered the intervention in the participants' first language (Spanish, Cantonese, or Mandarin). Three interventions targeted towards women only, one pregnant women specifically. We judged all studies as being at unclear risk of bias in at least one domain and three studies as being at high risk of bias in at least one domain.We categorised the findings into three comparisons. The first comparison examined mass media interventions targeted at ethnic minorities versus an equivalent mass media intervention intended for the general population. The one study in this category (255 participants of African decent) found little or no difference in effect on self-reported behavioural change for smoking and only small differences in attitudes to change between participants who were given a culturally specific smoking cessation booklet versus a booklet intended for the general population. We are uncertain about the effect estimates, as assessed by the GRADE methodology (very low quality evidence of effect). No study provided data for indicators of behavioural change or adverse effects.The second comparison assessed targeted mass media interventions versus no intervention. One study (154 participants of African decent) reported effects for our primary outcomes. Participants in the intervention group had access to 12 one-hour live programmes on cable TV and received print material over three months regarding nutrition and physical activity to improve health and weight control. Change in body mass index (BMI) was comparable between groups 12 months after the baseline (low quality evidence). Scores on a food habits (fat behaviours) and total leisure activity scores changed favourably for the intervention group (very low quality evidence). Two other studies exposed entire populations in geographical areas to radio advertisements targeted towards African American communities. Authors presented effects on two of our secondary outcomes, use of health promotion services and project costs. The campaign message was to call smoking quit lines. The outcome was the number of calls received. After one year, one study reported 18 calls per estimated 10,000 targeted smokers from the intervention communities (estimated target population 310,500 persons), compared to 0.2 calls per estimated 10,000 targeted smokers from the control communities (estimated target population 331,400 persons) (moderate quality evidence). The ITS study also reported an increase in the number of calls from the target population during campaigns (low quality evidence). The proportion of African American callers increased in both studies (low to very low quality evidence). No study provided data on knowledge and attitudes for change and adverse effects. Information on costs were sparse.The third comparison assessed targeted mass media interventions versus a mass media intervention plus personalised content. Findings are based on three studies (1361 participants). Participants in these comparison groups received personal feedback. Two of the studies recorded weight changes over time. Neither found significant differences between the groups (low quality evidence). Evidence on behavioural changes, and knowledge and attitudes typically found some effects in favour of receiving personalised content or no significant differences between groups (very low quality evidence). No study provided data on adverse effects. Information on costs were sparse. The available evidence is inadequate for understanding whether mass media interventions targeted toward ethnic minority populations are more effective in changing health behaviours than mass media interventions intended for the population at large. When compared to no intervention, a targeted mass media intervention may increase the number of calls to smoking quit line, but the effect on health behaviours is unclear. These studies could not distinguish the impact of different components, for instance the effect of hearing a message regarding behavioural change, the cultural adaptation to the ethnic minority group, or increase reach to the target group through more appropriate mass media channels. New studies should explore targeted interventions for ethnic minorities with a first language other than the dominant language in their resident country, as well as directly compare targeted versus general population mass media interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 403 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 403 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 84 21%
Student > Bachelor 49 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 12%
Researcher 45 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 5%
Other 71 18%
Unknown 84 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 63 16%
Social Sciences 41 10%
Psychology 35 9%
Sports and Recreations 12 3%
Other 56 14%
Unknown 104 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,880,252
of 16,602,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,263
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,045
of 264,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#145
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,602,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,049 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.