Six-Month Follow-up and Participant Use and Satisfaction of an Electronic Mail Intervention Promoting Physical Activity and Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of a 12-week e-mail intervention promoting physical activity and nutrition, and to describe participant use and satisfaction feedback. DESIGN: A longitudinal, randomized trial. SETTING: Five large workplaces in Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand forty-three participants completed all three assessments, and 1263 participants in the experimental group provided use and satisfaction feedback after receiving the 12-week intervention. INTERVENTION: Paired physical activity and nutrition messages were e-mailed weekly to the experimental group. The control group received all messages in bulk (i.e., within a single e-mail message) at the conclusion of the intervention. MEASURES: Self-report measures of knowledge, cognitions, and behaviors related to physical activity and nutrition were used. Satisfaction with e-mail messages was assessed at Time 2. ANALYSIS: Planned contrasts compared the experimental group measures at Time 3 with those reported at Time 2 and with control group measures reported at Time 3. Control group measures at Time 3 were also compared with control group measures at Time 2. RESULTS: The small intervention effects previously reported between Time 1 and Time 2 were maintained at Time 3. Providing the e-mail messages in bulk also had a significant positive effect on many of the physical activity and nutrition variables. CONCLUSIONS: E-mail offers a promising medium for promoting health-enhancing knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Additional research is needed to determine optimal message dose and content.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".