From Cues to Action: Information Seeking and Exercise Self-Care among Older Adults Managing Chronic Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Drawing from the health belief model, cues to action have been theorized to influence health behaviours; however, few studies have examined these constructs explicitly. This study investigated the relationship between information cues to action and exercise self-care. It was hypothesized that reading about illness information, knowing about services, and consulting with others about one's illness triggers exercise self-care. The sample consisted of 879 chronically ill adults aged 50 and over, drawn from the Vancouver North Shore Self-Care Study. It was found that the odds of exercising almost doubled for readers of information about illness (compared to non-readers), after controlling for socio-demographic factors, illness context, and illness efficacy. Furthermore, knowledge of services and consultations were shown to increase the odds of exercise self-care. These findings provide support for the salience of cues to action as a pivotal theoretical construct. The implications of these findings for health promotion programs targeting persons with chronic illnesses are discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".