[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.94.5. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
January 1992

Some Cautions in Labeling Effects

Author Affiliations

Baltimore, Md

Arch Intern Med. 1992;152(1):202. doi:10.1001/archinte.1992.00400130192026
Abstract

To the —  In the letter by Rudd and Fortmann that appeared in the November 1991 issue of the ARCHIVES,1 three issues were raised by the authors. First, they question whether those who participated in the labeling study differed from those whom we screened prior to that time. The major difference between participants in the labeling study and those from our earlier screenings is that they lived in other communities. Because we made no comparisons in the labeling study between the two groups, this question is not of major importance. Our participants were volunteers whom we recruited by posters, worksite newsletters, and notices in the mass media.Rudd and Fortmann state that "reluctant" participants may be more likely to display adverse labeling effects than self-selected ones, citing three of their own articles. These reports in fact indicate that they found no significant labeling effects among their participants. In the

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×