Messages to promote physical activity: Are descriptors of required duration and intensity related to intentions to be more active?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mass-media campaigns such as, "Change4Life' in the UK and "get active America" in the US, promote physical activity (PA) recommendations of at least 150 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA). We investigated whether different messages used in MVPA campaigns were associated with intention to engage in more MVPA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Theory of planned behavior (TPB) constructs; subjective norms, affective attitudes, instrumental attitudes and perceived behavioral control (PBC) were applied to explain the associations between campaign messages and intentions to engage in more MVPA. RESULTS: A total of 1412 UK adults completed an online survey on MVPA and TPB. The sample was 70% female and 93% white with 23% reporting meeting PA guidelines. Participants received one of three messages: A walking message either with or without the 150 min/week threshold (WalkT; WalkNT); a physiological description of MVPA with the 150 min/week threshold (PhysT). ANCOVA examined group differences in intention. Path analysis evaluated mediation by TPB variables. ANCOVA identified lower intentions to increase MVPA in group PhysT relative to WalkT and WalkNT (P < 0.001). PBC mediated this relationship in WalkT (β = 0.014, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.004-0.028) whereas affective attitudes mediated this relationship in WalkNT (β = 0.059, 95% CI = 0.006-0.113). CONCLUSIONS: Campaigns promoting MVPA guidelines need to choose their messages carefully. Messages which exemplified MVPA through walking were associated with higher intentions to increase MVPA than messages using a physiological description. Further, PBC was enhanced when the 150 min/week threshold was promoted alongside the walking exemplar. Future exemplars should be investigated to inform adults how to meet MVPA guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".