About the compliance sub-section...

There are lots of studies in the Banyard book...
e.g.
Bulpitt's on rational non-adherence
Wing et al on diabetes - showing how social roles/conformity affect the compliance of diabetics
Abraham's study/Wulfert and Wan's study on condom use and risk - both of these illustrate how we use the health belief model (evaluation of risk/cost benefits) and can also be used as examples of how self-efficacy beliefs affect compliance.

Kaplan - study of non-compliance in elderly patients.
Ley/McKinlay can also be used here - in fact there's quite a big overlap with Interpersonal Skills - if the patient doesn't understand (jargon) or can't remember, then they won't (can't) comply.

As far as evaluation is concerned

• There are always issues about generalisation and sample bias to address (McKinlay and Bulpitt both have a gender bias, for example)
• Where self-report methods are used (e.g. Abraham, Wing et al) there are issues of social desirability effects/demand characteristics
• Students can always raise the issue that by consenting to take part in a psychological study the S is already compliant (Nessman) and this may mean that the results of any study in this area may not be valid.
• There are issues about ecological validity - e.g. in the way Ss were asked about what they understood by the words in the McKinlay study
• All studies have an ethnocentric bias.
• There are evaluative issues that can be raised about the validity and reliability of measuring compliance as a variable.
• If the Health Belief model is cited, there are a number of evaluations that can be made of it e.g. how do we measure "perceived risk" in an objective way? Is the model useful to us if what is a cost to one person is a benefit to another?
  
  
  

Louise Ellerby-Jones