Factors Associated With Choice of Web or Print Intervention Materials in the Healthy Directions 2 Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many U.S. adults have multiple behavioral risk factors, and effective, scalable interventions are needed to promote population-level health. In the health care setting, interventions are often provided in print, although accessible to nearly everyone, are brief (e.g., pamphlets), are not interactive, and can require some logistics around distribution. Web-based interventions offer more interactivity but may not be accessible to all. Healthy Directions 2 was a primary care-based cluster randomized controlled trial designed to improve five behavioral cancer risk factors among a diverse sample of adults (n = 2,440) in metropolitan Boston. Intervention materials were available via print or the web. Purpose. To (a) describe the Healthy Directions 2 study design and (b) identify baseline factors associated with whether participants opted for print or web-based materials. METHODS: Hierarchical regression models corrected for clustering by physician were built to examine factors associated with choice of intervention modality. RESULTS: At baseline, just 4.0% of participants met all behavioral recommendations. Nearly equivalent numbers of intervention participants opted for print and web-based materials (44.6% vs. 55.4%). Participants choosing web-based materials were younger, and reported having a better financial status, better perceived health, greater computer comfort, and more frequent Internet use (p < .05) than those opting for print. In addition, Whites were more likely to pick web-based material than Black participants. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions addressing multiple behaviors are needed in the primary care setting, but they should be available in web and print formats as nearly equal number of participants chose each option, and there are significant differences in the population groups using each modality.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".