Incorporating the ‘Theory of Planned Behavior’ Into Personalized Healthcare Behavior Change Research: A Call to Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 'Theory of Planned Behavior' (TPB) has been tested and validated in the scientific literature across multiple disciplines and is arguably the most widely accepted theory among behavior change academics. Despite this widespread acceptability, the TPB has yet to be incorporated into personalized healthcare behavior change research. Several prominent personalized healthcare researchers suggest that personalizing healthcare recommendations have a positive impact on changes in lifestyle habits. However, research in this area has demonstrated conflicting findings. We provide a scientific and theoretical basis to support a proposed expansion of the TPB to include personalization, and call to action-personalized healthcare behavior change researchers to test this expansion. Specific recommendations for study design are included.
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 | 0.148 | 0.171 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".