Using the question-behavior effect to promote disease prevention behaviors: Two randomized controlled trials.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of interventions based on the question-behavior effect in promoting the adoption of disease prevention behaviors. DESIGN: In Study 1, adults from the general public were randomly allocated to complete a questionnaire about health checks (question-behavior effect condition) or not (control) and later received an invitation to attend for screening. In Study 2, health care professionals were randomly allocated to complete a questionnaire about influenza vaccination or not and later had the opportunity to receive a vaccination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We objectively assessed health check attendance (Study 1) and influenza vaccination (Study 2). RESULTS: In Study 1, intention-to-treat analyses indicated that health check attendance was significantly higher in the question-behavior effect condition (68.3%) compared with the control condition (53.5%). In Study 2, intention-to-treat analyses indicated that influenza vaccination was significantly higher among participants in the question-behavior effect condition (42.0%) compared with the control condition (36.3%), and this effect persisted after controlling for demographic variables. Explanatory analyses indicated that the effects in both studies were attributable to completing rather than merely receiving the questionnaire and were stronger for those with positive attitudes or intentions about the target behavior. CONCLUSION: The question-behavior effect represents a simple, cost-effective means to increase disease prevention behaviors among the general public and health professionals. Implications for promoting health behaviors 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.
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 | 0.020 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it