Evaluating the ParticipACTION “Think Again” Campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction ParticipACTION's 2011 "Think Again" campaign aimed to draw parents', and specifically mothers', attention to the amount of physical activity (PA) their children do relative to the national guidelines (physical activity guidelines [PAG]). Purpose To evaluate ParticipACTION's "Think Again" campaign in the context of the hierarchy of effects model. Methods Data were drawn from "Think Again" campaign evaluations conducted among two cohorts of parents with children ages 5 to 11 years (3 months postcampaign launch [T1], n = 702; 15 months postlaunch [T2], n = 670). Results At T2, campaign awareness was weakly associated with parents agreeing that their children were not active enough (p = .01, d = .18). Parents who were aware of the campaign showed greater knowledge of PAG (ps < .01, ϕs > .14), had higher outcome expectations about their children engaging in PA (p < .01, d = .16), had stronger intentions to help their child meet the guidelines (p < .01, d = .18), and engaged in more parental support behaviors (p < .001, d = .31) as compared with parents who were not aware. At T1, parents aware of the campaign had greater perceived behavioral control (PBC) to influence their child's PA participation (p < .01, d = .22), whereas parents not aware of the campaign had greater PBC to find practical ways to help their child be active (p < .01, d = .26). Parental awareness of the campaign was not associated with children meeting the PAG at either time point (ps > .05). Conclusions The campaign appeared marginally effective for increasing parental knowledge of PAG and for creating realistic awareness of children's PA levels. Additional intervention strategies are needed to produce larger effects and to change parental behavior.
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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.008 | 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".