Clinical Research Directory

Climate Change Education Based on the IMB Model for Pregnant Women

Climate change can affect the health of pregnant women and their babies, for example through extreme heat and air pollution. Many pregnant women worry about these effects but do not know how to protect themselves. This study tested whether a short education program could help pregnant women understand these risks and learn practical ways to protect their health. Pregnant women attending an antenatal education class took part in one group education session lasting about one hour. The session covered how climate change affects pregnancy and newborn health, helped women think about their own risks, and taught simple protective steps, such as staying safe on very hot days and on days with poor air quality. Women completed questionnaires before the session and again four weeks later. The study looked at changes in their awareness of climate change, their worry about climate change, how risky they felt their pregnancy was, and their fear of childbirth.

Effectiveness of an Audiovisual Disaster-Education Intervention on Disaster Risk Perception and Preparedness Belief Among Senior High-School Adolescents

This cluster-randomized controlled trial tests whether a short, standardized disaster-education video improves two psychological precursors of disaster preparedness among senior high-school students in a hazard-prone district of West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Twelve intact classes at one senior high school will be randomized 1:1, stratified by grade level, either to view a purpose-built audiovisual disaster-education module (approximately 20 minutes, shown twice in a single classroom session) or to view an attention-matched general adolescent-health video of similar length on an unrelated topic. Randomization is at the class level to reduce contamination between students, and the individual student is the unit of analysis. All students in a participating class view the video allocated to that class; a randomly drawn subsample of twelve students per class, 144 in total, completes the study questionnaires. Two co-primary outcomes are measured in every participant. The first is disaster preparedness belief, measured by the General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale. The second is disaster risk perception, measured by the Disaster Risk Perception Scale (DRPS). Both are collected at baseline before allocation, immediately after the session, and again four weeks later. The intervention and both instruments are grounded in the Health Belief Model, which predicts that raising perceived threat contributes to readiness to act. An exploratory mediation analysis will test whether change in risk perception explains part of any effect on preparedness belief. After the four-week assessment, control classes are offered the full disaster-education intervention.

Testing Warning Labels for Retail Cannabis Products Using a Discrete Choice Experiment

This discrete choice experiment (DCE) study aims to address gaps in cannabis packaging regulatory research by testing how variations in cannabis packaging and health warning design impact reactions to packaging and intentions about cannabis use. The goal of this work is to identify the most effective combination of health warning features to improve consumer awareness of cannabis health risks. Establishing criteria for cannabis products in the US is critical because inconsistent state guidelines have resulted in contradictory policies in legal retail states, arguably leading to increased hazardous use and failure to meet public health standards. The contributions of this study's outcomes are expected to be significant because they will benefit public health as cannabis becomes available in legal retail markets and regulatory and governmental agencies seek effective ways to communicate cannabis risks to the public.

Risk Perception Intervention for High-Risk Diabetic Foot

This study aims to evaluate the effect of health education based on information framing effects on foot ulcer risk perception in patients at high risk of diabetic foot. Study Design: A randomized controlled trial with three groups: Experimental Group 1 (Gain-Framed): Participants received a benefit framing message that emphasized the benefits of standardized foot care in reducing the likelihood and severity of foot ulcers, with an aim to reshape patients' perception of risk. Experimental Group 2 (Loss-Framed):Participants received a loss frame message that emphasized that neglecting foot care would increase the likelihood and severity of foot ulcers. The message was designed to awaken patients' awareness of crisis and risk perception. Control Group (Routine Messaging):Participants received the usual content of care in the endocrinology department without a specific framework. Participants: Diabetic foot patients at high risk from experimental group 1, experimental group 2, and control group 3. Inclusion criteria included adults with a diagnosis of diabetic foot at high risk. Intervention: The Total Study Period consisted of an intervention phase and a follow-up phase. The intervention phase started at the time of enrollment and lasted until the fourth week after discharge. The follow-up period lasted for 3 months. Data on local indicators were collected at baseline/before the intervention (T0), immediately after the intervention (T1), 1 month after the intervention (T2) and 3 months after the intervention (T3). Outcome Measures: Primary Outcomes: Foot ulcer risk perception: Assessed using The Tripartite Model of Risk Perception Scale. Secondary Outcomes: Foot care behavior score: Assessed using The Nottingham Foot Care Assessment Scale; Self-efficacy: Assessed using The Diabetes Self-Efficacy Scale; Intention to delay seeking medical help score:Assessed using the Questionnaire on Intention to Delay Seeking Medical Care for Patients with High-Risk Diabetic Foot; the incidence/recurrence rate of foot ulcers, and various laboratory indicators.