Table 6 Results.

From: Breaking the stigma and cultural tightness: a sequential mixed-method evidence on health communication interventions through YouTube videos to ingrain pre-marital genetic testing behavior

Paths

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Decision

β

p

β

p

β

p

β

p

Perceived Severity -> Response Efficacy

0.250

0.018

0.169

0.010

0.012

0.941

0.539

0.007

H1 Fully Supported

Perceived sensitivity -> Response Efficacy

0.121

0.296

0.227

0.000

0.308

0.017

0.082

0.715

H2 Partially supported

Perceived Severity -> Fear

0.319

0.016

0.406

0.000

0.526

0.024

0.503

0.005

H3 Supported

Perceived sensitivity -> Fear

−0.215

0.299

−0.124

0.100

−0.317

0.015

0.539

0.007

H4 Partially supported

Fear -> Response Efficacy

−0.117

0.302

−0.070

0.209

0.005

0.972

−0.318

0.132

H5 Not supported

Self-Efficacy -> Response Efficacy

0.551

0.000

0.479

0.000

0.490

0.000

0.227

0.213

H6 supported

Response Cost -> Intention

−0.319

0.006

−0.156

−0.156

−0.100

0.449

−0.247

0.269

H7 Partially supported

Response Efficacy -> Intention

0.439

0.001

0.372

0.000

0.237

0.172

0.342

0.178

H8 Fully supported

Moderating Effect: CTL X RE -> Intention

0.120

0.168

0.014

0.792

0.050

0.609

−0.033

0.888

H9 Not supported

  1. Note: Group 1 (Human Interest Frame), Group 2 = Consequence Frame, Group 3 = Uncertainty Media Frame, Group 4 = Attribution of Responsibility Frame, β = coefficient, P = Significance level, and Bold showing insignificant relationships.
Back to article page