Protection Motivation Theory

Protection Motivation Theory

The farmers consider themselves less suspectable to skin cancer. The results of the study indicate significantly low skin cancer preventive behaviors (SCPBs) among farmers. It means that very few farmers use SCPBs because many do not feel that they are at risk of skin cancer (Hayden, 2019). Even after learning about SCPBs, many rural farmers do not apply them in their daily routines. The framers are vulnerable to skin cancer because direct solar radiation on the skin increases the risk. The more an individual spends hours exposed under the sun, the higher the likelihood of suffering skin cancer and solar radiation complications (Rahaei et al., 2015). The rewards of using SCPBs include a significant decline in the risk of skin cancer. Many of the farmers seem to lack knowledge of the value of SCPBs in promoting the health of their skin.

The farmer’s coping appraisal includes citing the impracticability of the SCPBs. For example, farmers indicated that wearing a hat to protect from skin rays while working decreases one’s concentration (Hayden, 2019). The farmers noted the distraction that wearing hats posed in successfully completing their tasks. The other coping appraisal the farmers used is social and cultural norms or defenses. For example, some farmers indicated that is they wore sunscreen, their relatives would laugh at them.

The cultural norms around the use of SCPBs become a defense mechanism for why it is not possible (Hayden, 2019). Framers also cited the lack of financial ability to afford the required items to use SCPBs. Many instances, farmers with more economic resources are likely to use SCPBs, while others do not find it practical (Rahaei et al., 2015). For example, if one does not have money to buy sunscreen and hats, among other items, they do not feel compelled to embrace these behaviors.

The suggestions the authors made regarding the interventions for reducing skin cancer include education or awareness. Increasing awareness and knowledge regarding skin cancer susceptibility among rural farmers should be considered. This is because it would lead to a rise in perceived threat towards the illness and prompt farmers to apply techniques that eliminate the threat (Rahaei et al., 2015). The other recommendation is increasing the ability to receive rewards when a farmer uses SCPBs. If a farmer believes using the SCPBs increase rewards such as the low risk of cancer, they are likely to adopt these activities. The other recommendation is increasing farmer’s self-efficacy. The idea is to help farmers realize that they can overcome a given problem (Communication, n.d.). For example, knowing that one can overcome the danger of leaving one’s family behind because of death can prompt one to perform healthy behaviors when exposed to the risk.

My threat response was similar to those of the farmers in that I viewed the problem of finances as a significant hindrance. Many of the preventive techniques for skin cancer, such as clothing, sunscreen, and other accessories, require a considerable amount of money (Rahaei et al., 2015). For small farmers in rural areas, these would be a huge burden that makes it challenging to adopt SCPBs. It would be a problem for many when they are trying to feed their families to incorporate extra expenses. I feel that the suggested intervention foci would be effective because while they may not have money, understanding the overall risk of not protecting oneself from cancer encourages action (Communication, n.d.). The fear of dying and losing even the little that one has would push farmers to adopt SCPBs.

 

 

References

Communication Theory. (n.d.). Protection motivation theory. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://www.communicationtheory.org/protection-motivation-theory/

Hayden, J. (2019). Introduction to health behavior theory (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Rahaei, Z., Ghofranipour, F., Morowatisharifabad, M., & Mohammadi, E. (2015). Determinants of cancer early detection behaviors: Application of protection motivation theory. Health Promotion Perspectives, 5(2), 138–146.