MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1456856010 · doi:10.1177/1359105315603463

Narrative interventions for health screening behaviours: A systematic review

2015· review· en· W1456856010 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia Influence and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNarrativePsychological interventionSystematic reviewPsychologyNarrative reviewPublic healthHealth psychologyPublic health interventionsMEDLINEMedicineClinical psychologyApplied psychologySocial psychologyPsychotherapistNursingPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health information can be presented in different formats, such as a statistically-based or a story-based (e.g. narrative) format; however, there is no consensus on the ideal way to present screening information. This systematic review summarizes the literature pertaining to narrative interventions' efficacy at changing screening behaviour and its determinants. Five psychology and public health databases were searched; 19 studies, 18 focused on cancer and 1 on sexual health, met eligibility criteria. There is consistent evidence supporting the efficacy of narratives, but mixed evidence supporting an advantage for narratives over statistical interventions for screening behaviour and its determinants. Further investigation is warranted.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.600
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.008 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it