A test of an adherence-enhancing adjunct to physiotherapy steeped in the protection motivation theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to test the effect of a Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-based patient education intervention on physiotherapy patients' beliefs about their injury and physiotherapy, intentions to adhere, rehabilitation adherence, and ankle function. A secondary aim was to explore the relationships between the patients' injury and physiotherapy beliefs, intentions, adherence behaviours, and ankle function. A randomized controlled trial was undertaken in New Zealand; 71 people with ankle sprains were allocated to either PMT present video information or two control groups (non-PMT information about ankle sprains and no formal information) before commencing their course of physiotherapy. The two information groups watched a video about ankle sprains and physiotherapy before answering the Beliefs about Ankle Sprains and Physiotherapy Scale and behavioural intentions questionnaires that measured the PMT constructs. Adherence was assessed at each treatment and ankle function was measured before and after the physiotherapy program. After viewing the video, the PMT present information group's beliefs about severity, vulnerability, and response efficacy were significantly higher than the other two groups. The groups did not differ significantly on their self-efficacy, intentions, rehabilitation adherence, and post-physiotherapy program ankle function. Significant correlations existed between the patients' PMT-based beliefs and intentions, intentions and adherence, and adherence and post-physiotherapy ankle function. With the exception of self-efficacy, the findings indicate that persuasive information grounded in PMT does enhance physiotherapy patients' beliefs about their injury and treatment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".