CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Vaccine Coverage and HesitancyHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityMedia Influence and Health

Patient knowledge and recall of health information following exposure to “facts and myths” message format variations

Open access
Cameron, Kenzie A., Roloff, Michael E., Friesema, Elisha M., Brown, Tiffany, Jovanovic, Borko D., Hauber, Sara, Baker, David W.·2013·Patient Education and Counseling
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.017PMC PMC3772650
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To assess if exposure to varying "facts and myths" message formats affected participant knowledge and recall accuracy of information related to influenza vaccination.Methods Consenting patients (N=125) were randomized to receive one of four influenza related messages (Facts Only; Facts and Myths; Facts, Myths, and Refutations; or CDC Control), mailed one week prior to a scheduled physician visit. Knowledge was measured using 15 true/false items at pretest and posttest; recall accuracy was assessed using eight items at posttest.Results All participants' knowledge scores increased significantly (p<0.05); those exposed to the CDC Control message had a higher posttest knowledge score (adjusted mean=11.18) than those in the Facts Only condition (adjusted mean 9.61, p=<0.02). Participants accurately recalled a mean of 4.49 statements (SD=1.98). ANOVA demonstrated significant differences in recall accuracy by condition [F(3, 83)=7.74, p<.001, η(2)=0.22].Conclusion Messages that include facts, myths, and evidence to counteract myths appear to be effective in increasing participants' knowledge. We found no evidence that presenting both facts and myths is counterproductive to recall accuracy.Practice implications Use of messages containing facts and myths may engage the reader and lead to knowledge gain. Recall accuracy is not assured by merely presenting factual information.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.017

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent study by Cameron et al. found that participants exposed to facts, myths, and evidence to counteract those myths gained more knowledge and had better recall accuracy than those merely presented with factual information.

    “A recent study by Cameron et al. [29] employing different facts versus myths message formats justifies the use of myths to overcome health misinformation, as participants who were exposed to facts, myths, and evidence to counteract those myths gained more knowledge regarding a specific health topic and had a better recall accuracy than those who were merely presented with factual information.”

    From Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies (2017) · cites this paper as [29]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [5]National Center for Health Statistics Health, United States, 2006 with chartbook on trends in the health of Americans [Internet] 2006 Hyattsville (MD) Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf 13 Aug 2012 20698067

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cameron, K. A., Roloff, M. E., Friesema, E. M., Brown, T., Jovanovic, B. D., Hauber, S., & Baker, D. W.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Cameron, Kenzie A.
ORCID
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
92
Issue
3
Pages
381-387
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.017
PMC
PMC3772650
OpenAlex
W2033680448
Cited by
76
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000150)
  • National Institute on Aging (R21AG031470)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
influenza vaccination, health information recall, health knowledge, myths and facts, message format, refutation, patient education materials, health literacy
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Influenza Vaccines, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Mental Recall, Socioeconomic Factors, Vaccination, Health Communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review