Exploring the Role of In-Person Components for Online Health Behavior Change Interventions: Can a Digital Person-to-Person Component Suffice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growth of the digital environment provides tremendous opportunities to revolutionize health behavior change efforts. This paper explores the use of Web-based, mobile, and social media health behavior change interventions and determines whether there is a need for a face-to-face or an in-person component. It is further argued that that although in-person components can be beneficial for online interventions, a digital person-to-person component can foster similar results while dealing with challenges faced by traditional intervention approaches. Using a digital person-to-person component is rooted in social and behavioral theories such as the theory of reasoned action, and the social cognitive theory, and further justified by the human support constructs of the model of supportive accountability. Overall, face-to-face and online behavior change interventions have their respective advantages and disadvantages and functions, yet both serve important roles. It appears that it is in fact human support that is the most important component in the effectiveness and adherence of both face-to-face and online behavior change interventions, and thoughtfully introducing a digital person-to-person component, to replace face-to-face interactions, can provide the needed human support while diminishing the barriers of in-person meetings. The digital person-to-person component must create accountability, generate opportunities for tailored feedback, and create social support to successfully create health behavior change. As the popularity of the online world grows, and the interest in using the digital environment for health behavior change interventions continues to be embraced, further research into not only the use of online interventions, but the use of a digital person-to-person component, must be explored.
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 | 0.036 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".