Efficacy of an E-Mail Intervention for the Promotion of Physical Activity and Nutrition Behavior in the Workplace Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a 12-week workplace e-mail intervention designed to promote physical activity and nutrition behavior. DESIGN: A pre- and post-test design was conducted to compare the effects of e-mail messages between intervention and control groups. SETTING: Five large workplaces in Alberta, Canada. SUBJECTS: Employees with access to a personal e-mail address (N = 2121) were randomly assigned to an intervention (n = 1566) or a control group (n = 555). INTERVENTION: Physical activity and nutrition messages were based on social-cognitive theories. The intervention group received one physical activity and one parallel nutrition message per week for 12 weeks. The control group received no weekly messages. MEASURES: Each participant completed self-report measures of physical activity and nutrition related to knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors 1 week before (time 1) and 1 week after (time 2) the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention group was more efficacious at time 2 on measures of self-efficacy, pros, cons, intentions, and behavior related to physical activity. This group also reported more favorable changes in practicing healthy eating, balancing food intake with activity level, cooking meals with techniques to reduce fat, and avoiding eating high-fat foods. Effect sizes for all significant differences were small. CONCLUSION: E-mail is a promising mode of delivery for promoting physical activity and nutrition in the workplace. Further theoretically driven studies are needed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".