Colon cancer information as a source of exercise motivation for relatives of patients with colon cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) framework, this study examined whether factual colon cancer information is a meaningful source of exercise motivation for relatives of patients with colon cancer. One hundred sixty-six inactive relatives were randomly assigned to one of two treatment conditions: PMT group (intervention); and non-PMT group (attention control). At baseline (T1) participants completed demographic information, a questionnaire designed to assess their beliefs toward exercise and colon cancer as well as their exercise intentions. At T2 (one week following T1) participants watched one of two DVD videos that were created for the study. The intervention DVD contained exercise and colon cancer information that was yoked within the four major components of PMT: perceived vulnerability (PV); perceived severity (PS); response efficacy (RE); and self-efficacy (SE), while the attention control DVD contained general diet and cancer information. Immediately following watching the DVD, participants completed the same measures as in T1. Participants assigned to the PMT intervention group showed significant improvement in PV, RE, SE and exercise intentions, whereas participants assigned to the attention control group showed significant improvement only in RE. RE, SE, and PS made significant and unique contributions to prediction of exercise intention. Overall, the results of the present study demonstrate that a single exposure media intervention grounded in a PMT framework can change individuals' exercise and colon cancer beliefs, as well as change their exercise intentions. Implications of these findings and direction for future research 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".