Download Application and Analysis #3 Explain how the PAPM model was used

Application and Analysis #3
1. Explain how the PAPM model was used to address planning and intervention characteristics
in the Costanza et al. (2009) article.
In this study, the authors clearly listed out the different steps of the Precaution Adoption
Process Model (PAPM) under the Theoretical Basis of the Intervention section. They also
mentioned how the PAPM is different from the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) by combining
steps 1-4 of the PAPM into one for the TTM. The authors determined that the fourth and fifth
stages were the most critical for their program so they decided to split those stages up into
subgroups 4, 4a, 4b, 5, 5a, 5b, and 5c and focus on how they could control those subgroups and
what they could learn from them (Costanza, et al, 2009). Stage 4 individuals were those who
decided they would not get a mammogram or those who would only get one if their perceived
risk increased. Stage 5 individuals were those who were open to the idea of a mammogram in
the near future or in general. This is the extent to where the PAPM was discussed in the article.
2. Determine and explain if the use of the model made sense based on the description of the
model in the appropriate textbook chapter and supplemental materials.
It seems that although the authors had good intentions in using the PAPM for their
program, they did not follow through with the model nor did they effectively use the sections
they desired to use. It is logical to use only the parts of the model that are applicable to the
experiment but it is also logical to go beyond just one step and to have more results than were
found to justify further use of the program to reach that one step. Moving from stage 3 (deciding
about acting) to stage 4 (deciding not to act) or stage 5 (deciding to act) seems like a task that
could be better handled with a theory that works around changing someone’s behavior, like the
value-expectancy theories. It was an experiment focusing on the “how” of the problem instead
of the “why,” which is in line with a stage model, but it did not allow room for moving up and
down the stages because there was only one place to move. The simplicity of the experiment and
the lack of movement seems more fitting of other types of models instead of the Precaution
Adoption Process Model.
Along with that note, the authors explained how the PAPM would be used but they did
not continue to reference those parts throughout the article so it all got lost quickly after the
explanation. If someone without knowledge of the model came along and read the article, they
would be confused by how it all ties into the experiment. To say you are using a model, it is
important to continue referencing it to ensure it is clearly understood by the readers.
3. In review of your chosen secondary articles, how did the application of the model differ
between the interventions? In your opinion, is one application a better use of the model than
the other? Explain.
In 2005, there was a study published by The British Psychological Society that
questioned Germans and their reactions to meat consumption after the Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy outbreak, more commonly known as “mad cow disease (BSE, 2013),” in the
early 2000’s (Sniehotta, et al, 2005). Their study was to compare the changes, or lack thereof, of
people’s beef consumption and compare that to their perceived susceptibility. By using the
PAPM as a categorical model, they were able to take the 808 participants and split them up into
their respective stages depending on how they answered a questionnaire. After that, they were
questioned on their perception of their risk of getting BSE which resulted in classifications of
each stage. For example, they were able to determine that those who were in Stage 2
(unengaged) perceived themselves as having low vulnerability.
Also an example of the Precaution Adoption Process Model, in 2007 there was a study
performed that questioned people who suffer of epilepsy and their perceived risk of osteoporosis
since epileptic drugs are often related to high bone loss and osteoporosis (Elliott, et al, 2007).
After finding participants for the study through a local doctor’s office, the researchers either
asked epileptic patients who were visiting the doctor a set of questions or they mailed out
questionnaires for patients to complete and send in. The questions asked them about their
current forms of bone loss prevention, a high calcium diet, calcium supplements, exercise, and
DEXA (a bone density screening), and how they perceived their susceptibility to osteoporosis is.
With this information, the researchers were able to find out what types of people were proactive
about prevention and what the most popular options were.
I was not aware of how much the PAPM could be used as a survey tool more than
anything else. It seems like a good model for addiction recovery and dieting as it allows room
for relapse, but it makes sense to use it for survey information as well. I believe that the study
about mad cow disease was the most PAPM effective as it continually referenced the model and
how it was working with the constructs to find the most valuable information. The other two
articles definitely had a way of incorporating the model into the studies but they did not
continually explain how it all worked together so the model got lost at times. It is difficult to
understand the structure of a study if the model is only mentioned at the beginning and not
throughout the article as a reference.
References
BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease). (2013, Feb. 21). Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved on November 19, 2014, from
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/bse/
Costanza, M.E., Luckmann, R., White, M.J., Rosal, M.C., LaPelle, N., Cranos, C. (2009, June
11). Moving mammogram-reluctant women to screening: A pilot study. The Society of
Behavioral Medicine. Retrieved on November 18, 2014, from
https://engage.cune.edu/learn/pluginfile.php/29391/mod_page/content/6/Week%204_MP
H515_PAPM.pdf
DiClemente, R.J., Salazar, L.F., Crosby, R.A. (2013). Health behavior theory for public health:
principles, foundations, and applications. Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. Burlington:
MA.
Elliott, J.O., Seals, B.F., Jacobson, M.P. (2007, Dec. 7). Use of the Precaution Adoption Process
Model to examine predictors of osteoprotective behavior in epilepsy. European Journal of
Epilepsy. 16(5). Retrieved on November 19, 2014, from http://www.seizurejournal.com/article/S1059-1311(07)00056-8/fulltext
Sniehotta, F.F., Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., Lippke, S. (2005). Discontinuity patterns in stages
of the precaution adoption process model: Meat consumption during a livestock
epidemic. British Journal of Health Psychology. Retrieved on November 19, 2014, from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/135910705X26137/full