The health impact of an online heart disease support group: a comparison of moderated versus unmoderated support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess whether our online closed community heart care support group and information resource could sustain changes in health behaviour after the moderators withdrew their support. Heart patients (n = 108) living in a deprived area of Greater Manchester were recruited from general practitioners' coronary heart disease registries. The sample for this randomized controlled trial was divided in half at random where half of the participants received password-protected access to our health portal and the other half did not. At 6 months follow-up (based on the moderated phase), there was a significant difference between the experimental group and the controls in terms of self-reported diet (eating bad foods less often). This change in behaviour was not sustained during the 3-month unmoderated phase. During this unmoderated phase of the intervention, the experimental group had significantly more health care visits compared with the controls. There was no significant difference between the two phases for either group in terms of exercise, smoking or social support. This study offers insight into the potential implications for health changes of moderating arrangements for online health communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".