Individual's recollections of their experiences in eye clinics and understanding of their eye condition:results from a survey of visually impaired people in Britain

Background/aims: Network 1000 is a UK-based panel survey of a representative sample of adults with registered visual impairment, with the aim of gathering information about people’s opinions and circumstances. Method: Participants were interviewed (Survey 1, n = 1007: 2005; Survey 2, n = 922: 2006/07) on a range of topics including the nature of their eye condition, details of other health issues, use of low vision aids (LVAs) and their experiences in eye clinics. Results: Eleven percent of individuals did not know the name of their eye condition. Seventy percent of participants reported having long-term health problems or disabilities in addition to visual impairment and 43% reported having hearing difficulties. Seventy one percent reported using LVAs for reading tasks. Participants who had become registered as visually impaired in the previous 8 years (n = 395) were asked questions about non-medical information received in the eye clinic around that time. Reported information received included advice about ‘registration’ (48%), low vision aids (45%) and social care routes (43%); 17% reported receiving no information. While 70% of people were satisfied with the information received, this was lower for those of working age (56%) compared with retirement age (72%). Those who recalled receiving additional non-medical information and advice at the time of registration also recalled their experiences more positively. Conclusions: Whilst caution should be applied to the accuracy of recall of past events, the data provide a valuable insight into the types of information and support that visually impaired people feel they would benefit from in the eye clinic

Perceived legitimacy can moderate the effect of proscriptive versus prescriptive injunctions on intentions to comply with UK government COVID‐19 guidelines and reactance

Proscriptive injunctions (i.e., telling people what they should not do) have been found in research to elicit greater perceptions of a threat to freedom, and greater reactance (anger, irritation and annoyance), than prescriptive injunctions (i.e., telling people what they should do), across several health and social behaviors. The current research investigated the effects of Injunction Type (proscriptive vs. prescriptive) and perceived legitimacy of the injunction, on intentions to comply with UK government behavioral guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, and on reactance. In two online experimental studies (Study 1: N = 142; Study 2: N = 307), UK participants were presented with information about UK government COVID-19 guidelines that included either a proscriptive injunction or prescriptive injunction and reported their perceptions of the legitimacy of the injunction, their intentions to comply with government guidelines, and their reactance. In both Study 1 and Study 2, the effect of Injunction Type on intentions to comply and reactance was moderated by perceived legitimacy. In both studies, when perceived legitimacy was low, participants exposed to the proscriptive injunction indicated lower intentions to comply with UK government COVID-19 guidelines than did participants exposed to the prescriptive injunction. The findings imply that using a prescriptive injunction frame can elicit greater intentions to comply than using a proscriptive injunction frame when people perceive the injunction to be unreasonable. The results are discussed in relation to the role of legitimacy in determining the effectiveness of different types of injunctions on compliance with rules and guidelines

<b>Study 2: Estimated marginal means and standard errors of each dependent variable for high BMI embedded autonomy-prime and embedded heteronomy-prime participants who read a gain-framed and loss-framed health message.</b>

<p>*Lower scores for behavior indicate greater avoidance of high-calorie snacks.</p

Study 1: Prime×Frame interaction for snack food consumption.

<p>Estimated marginal means (+−<i>SE</i>) of Time 2 snack food consumption for autonomy, neutral or heteronomy prime participants who read a gain-framed or loss-framed health message.</p

Study 2: Prime

<p>×<b>Frame interaction for intentions to avoid high calorie snacks.</b> Study 2: Estimated marginal means (+−<i>SE</i>) of Time 1 intentions to avoid high calorie snacks in the next 7 days for embedded autonomy-prime or embedded heteronomy-prime participants who read a gain-framed or loss-framed health message.</p

<b>Study 1: Estimated marginal means and standard errors of each dependent variable for autonomy, neutral, and heteronomy prime participants who read a gain-framed and loss-framed health message.</b>

<p>*Lower scores for behavior indicate greater avoidance of high-calorie snacks.</p