MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762159753 · doi:10.1037/hea0000551

Affective mental contrasting to enhance physical activity: A randomized controlled trial.

2017· article· en· W2762159753 on OpenAlexafffund
Geralyn R. Ruissen, Ryan E. Rhodes, Peter R.E. Crocker, Mark R. Beauchamp

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMental healthIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionRandomized controlled trialPsychologyClinical psychologyPhysical activityRandomizationPsycINFOMedicineMEDLINEPsychiatryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Transition to university is a vulnerable period for discontinuing regular physical activity that can have implications for students' physical and psychological health. Accordingly, it is imperative to find and implement cost and time-effective interventions to mitigate the consequences of this transition. Intervention research has shown mental contrasting is an effective means of promoting various health-enhancing behaviors including physical activity. However, the efficacy of this intervention approach may be bolstered by targeting affective judgments (e.g., enjoyable-unenjoyable), which exert greater influence on physical activity behaviors compared to health-related instrumental judgments (e.g., useful-useless). The purpose of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of a mental contrasting intervention that targeted affective judgments associated with physical activity, in relation to a mental contrasting intervention that targeted instrumental judgments, and a "standard" mental contrasting intervention (with no modifications). METHOD: Using a 3-arm parallel randomized controlled trial design (ClinicalTrials.gov Number NCT02615821), 110 insufficiently active, female, university students were randomly assigned to an affective, instrumental, or standard mental contrasting intervention following simple randomization procedures. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 4 weeks postintervention. RESULTS: Participants in the affective mental contrasting condition displayed higher levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity than those in the instrumental or standard comparison conditions, F(2, 90) = 3.14, p < .05, ηp2 = 0.065. CONCLUSION: Overall, affective mental contrasting has the potential to represent a low-cost and time-efficient intervention that may help insufficiently active, female students increase activity or attenuate declining levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity that occurs during university. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.445 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207