The Effects of Gain- versus Loss-Framed Messages Following Health Risk Information on Physical Activity in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few people with multiple sclerosis engage in physical activity. Messaging interventions may motivate more physical activity among these individuals. The purpose of this online study was to evaluate an intervention presenting participants with multiple sclerosis (N = 237) with risk information (i.e., information demonstrating people with multiple sclerosis are more likely to experience certain health issues) or no risk information followed by gain- or loss-framed physical activity messages. Participants completed questionnaires on Days 1, 6, and 28 and received information material on Days 2-5. The dependent variables were as follows: physical activity intentions and behavior, response and task efficacy, perceived threat (i.e., perception of threat to health issues relevant to people with multiple sclerosis), and avoidance (i.e., avoiding thinking about/doing something about the health issues presented in the messages). Analyses indicated physical activity and response efficacy increased over time. Also, participants receiving risk information had higher levels of physical activity and perceived threat. However, manipulation checks showed no differences between participants regarding perceptions of risk information or gain/loss-framed messages. Despite the lack of impact of the framing intervention, this study suggests that a brief informational intervention can positively influence physical activity and certain correlates of physical activity among people with multiple sclerosis.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it