23 research outputs found
Effect of Dark Pattern on Tourism Industry
No full textDark Patterns are design tricks that manipulate users into making choices they might not
genuinely want, by exploiting cognitive biases. Despite their impact, research on these deceptive
tactics in the tourism industry remains limited. This study examines how dark patterns influence
consumer purchase intentions (PI) and fear of missing out (FOMO) on online travel booking
platforms. To do so two experiments are performed. Experiment one tested social proof (activity
message, positive testimonial, negative testimonial) across three categories of tourism (package,
hotel, flight) using a mixed factorial design. Its results showed that positive testimonials
increased purchase intentions, while activity messages heightened FOMO in participants.
Experiment two, tested scarcity appeals (countdown timer, limited supply) across the same
categories using mixed factorial design. Its results revealed that limited supply scarcity does
increase purchase intention more in comparison with countdown timer, but neither scarcity
appeal significantly affected FOMO. Experiment three, tested high anchor and low anchor
across the same categories u ko sing mixed factorial design. Its low anchor condition produced
slightly higher scores compared to the high anchor condition but neither anchor significantly
affected FOMO. Findings indicate while positive testimonials and limited supply scarcity and
low anchor effectively boost consumers' purchase intentions, their impact on FOMO varies,
suggesting room for more targeted and ethical marketing strategies
Relevance of Gender-Sensitive Policies and General Health Indicators to Compare the Status of South Asian Women’s Health
No full text
Safe abortion within the Venezuelan complex humanitarian emergency: understanding context as key to identifying the potential for digital self-care tools in expanding access
No full textW-GYN-MD-093 Feasibility and Acceptability of a Mobile Technology Intervention to Support [Facts] Women’s Post-Abortion Care in British Columbia: Protocol for the Facts Study
No full textThere\u27s an App for It: A Systematic Review of Mobile Apps Providing Information About Abortion Using a Revised MARS Scale
No full textMobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used to access health-related information, but it may be challenging for consumers to identify accurate and reliable platforms. We conducted a systematic review of applications that provide information about abortion. We searched the iTunes and Google Play stores and queried professional networks to identify relevant apps. To evaluate the apps, we used the validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and added relevant abortion-specific elements. Two reviewers independently rated each app, and we report mean scores on a 5-point scale across the domains of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information. We also rated app characteristics (including target population and reach), and number of desirable abortion-specific features. We defined recommended apps as those that achieved a score of 4.0 or above for the question: would you recommend this app to people who may benefit from it? Our search initially yielded 282 apps and we identified two additional apps through professional mailing lists. Most were irrelevant or not abortion-specific. We excluded 37 apps that sought to discourage users from seeking abortion. Only 10 apps met inclusion criteria for this review. The Euki app had the highest overall score (4.0). Half of the apps achieved a score of 3.0 or greater. Most of the apps had few desirable design features. Some apps provided significant information but had poor functionality. Only four apps met criteria for being recommended: Euki, Safe Abortion by Hesperian, Ipas Mexico, and Marie Stopes Mexico. In conclusion, we found few apps that provide unbiased information about abortion, and their quality varied greatly. App developers and abortion experts should consider designing additional apps that are clinically accurate, unbiased and well-functioning. We registered this review in the PROSPERO database (Registration # CRD42020195802)
Reducing the harms of unsafe abortion: a systematic review of the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for pregnant persons seeking induced abortion
No full textBACKGROUND: Globally, access to safe abortion is limited. We aimed to assess the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of harm reduction counselling for abortion, which we define as the provision of information about safe abortion methods to pregnant persons seeking abortion. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane, Global Index Medicus and the grey literature up to October 2021. We included studies in which healthcare providers gave pregnant persons information on safe use of abortifacient medications without providing the actual medications. We conducted a descriptive summary of results and a risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-I tool. Our primary outcome was the proportion of pregnant persons who used misoprostol to induce abortion rather than other methods among those who received harm reduction counselling. RESULTS: We included four observational studies with a total of 4002 participants. Most pregnant persons who received harm reduction counselling induced abortion using misoprostol (79%–100%). Serious complication rates were low (0%–1%). Uterine aspiration rates were not always reported but were in the range of 6%–22%. Patient satisfaction with the harm reduction intervention was high (85%–98%) where reported. We rated the risk of bias for all studies as high due to a lack of comparison groups and high lost to follow-up rates. DISCUSSION: Based on a synthesis of four studies with serious methodological limitations, most recipients of harm reduction counselling use misoprostol for abortion, have low complication rates, and are satisfied with the intervention. More research is needed to determine abortion success outcomes from the harm reduction approach. FUNDING: This work did not receive any funding. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: We registered the review in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (ID number: CRD42020200849)
Flowchart of Abortion App Search.
No full textMobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used to access health-related information, but it may be challenging for consumers to identify accurate and reliable platforms. We conducted a systematic review of applications that provide information about abortion. We searched the iTunes and Google Play stores and queried professional networks to identify relevant apps. To evaluate the apps, we used the validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and added relevant abortion-specific elements. Two reviewers independently rated each app, and we report mean scores on a 5-point scale across the domains of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information. We also rated app characteristics (including target population and reach), and number of desirable abortion-specific features. We defined recommended apps as those that achieved a score of 4.0 or above for the question: “would you recommend this app to people who may benefit from it?” Our search initially yielded 282 apps and we identified two additional apps through professional mailing lists. Most were irrelevant or not abortion-specific. We excluded 37 apps that sought to discourage users from seeking abortion. Only 10 apps met inclusion criteria for this review. The Euki app had the highest overall score (4.0). Half of the apps achieved a score of 3.0 or greater. Most of the apps had few desirable design features. Some apps provided significant information but had poor functionality. Only four apps met criteria for being recommended: Euki, Safe Abortion by Hesperian, Ipas Mexico, and Marie Stopes Mexico. In conclusion, we found few apps that provide unbiased information about abortion, and their quality varied greatly. App developers and abortion experts should consider designing additional apps that are clinically accurate, unbiased and well-functioning. We registered this review in the PROSPERO database (Registration # CRD42020195802).</div
PRISMA Flowchart.
No full textMobile applications (apps) are increasingly being used to access health-related information, but it may be challenging for consumers to identify accurate and reliable platforms. We conducted a systematic review of applications that provide information about abortion. We searched the iTunes and Google Play stores and queried professional networks to identify relevant apps. To evaluate the apps, we used the validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and added relevant abortion-specific elements. Two reviewers independently rated each app, and we report mean scores on a 5-point scale across the domains of engagement, functionality, esthetics, and information. We also rated app characteristics (including target population and reach), and number of desirable abortion-specific features. We defined recommended apps as those that achieved a score of 4.0 or above for the question: “would you recommend this app to people who may benefit from it?” Our search initially yielded 282 apps and we identified two additional apps through professional mailing lists. Most were irrelevant or not abortion-specific. We excluded 37 apps that sought to discourage users from seeking abortion. Only 10 apps met inclusion criteria for this review. The Euki app had the highest overall score (4.0). Half of the apps achieved a score of 3.0 or greater. Most of the apps had few desirable design features. Some apps provided significant information but had poor functionality. Only four apps met criteria for being recommended: Euki, Safe Abortion by Hesperian, Ipas Mexico, and Marie Stopes Mexico. In conclusion, we found few apps that provide unbiased information about abortion, and their quality varied greatly. App developers and abortion experts should consider designing additional apps that are clinically accurate, unbiased and well-functioning. We registered this review in the PROSPERO database (Registration # CRD42020195802).</div
