The International journal on drug policy · 2023
The name and frame matters when it comes to public support of opioid prevention programs.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Johnston Jennifer B, Thompson Kaya A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose is the second leading cause of accidental death. Safe Consumption Sites (SCSs) are very effective harm reduction, but skepticism persists in the U.S. In four U.S. states, legislative attempts failed, except for Rhode Island's "Harm Reduction Center," (HRC), and New York City's "Overdose Prevention Centers" (OPP).
METHODS: We hypothesized that compassion naming and framing would rate higher than safety/security or just-the-facts framing. Our mixed methods design included focus groups and a randomized experiment with an online panel of representative U.S. adults. All rated the title, description, and two or more images related to the program. Focus groups discussed impressions.
RESULTS: Of four packets seen (SCS, OPP, HRC, and SIF), OPP was the clear favorite in both studies. Unexpectedly, offering facts and statistics improved favorability. Compassionate language was a primary driver of favorability, followed by life-saving medical messaging. Imagery of people helping and smiling was liked best. Focus groups' primary concern was about "their backyards," but also, they desired to save lives and reduce suffering.
CONCLUSION: Stigma drove opposition to SCSs, as did conservative political affiliation. We provide finalized marketing packets which will reduce stigma and generate public support for SCSs.
METHODS: We hypothesized that compassion naming and framing would rate higher than safety/security or just-the-facts framing. Our mixed methods design included focus groups and a randomized experiment with an online panel of representative U.S. adults. All rated the title, description, and two or more images related to the program. Focus groups discussed impressions.
RESULTS: Of four packets seen (SCS, OPP, HRC, and SIF), OPP was the clear favorite in both studies. Unexpectedly, offering facts and statistics improved favorability. Compassionate language was a primary driver of favorability, followed by life-saving medical messaging. Imagery of people helping and smiling was liked best. Focus groups' primary concern was about "their backyards," but also, they desired to save lives and reduce suffering.
CONCLUSION: Stigma drove opposition to SCSs, as did conservative political affiliation. We provide finalized marketing packets which will reduce stigma and generate public support for SCSs.