Message framing and counseling of parents on children’s physical activity – an experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How messages are framed (gain or loss frame) modulate the effect of health information on physical activity level in adults. The role of framing of health information messages to parents about their child's physical activity is unknown.Adult participants (parents) were randomized to see a video that either emphasized the benefits of physical activity (gain frame) or the risks of physical inactivity (loss frame) in children. The primary outcome was the change in the reported level of physical activity for their children between baseline and two-week follow-up.92 individuals participated in the study and we obtained follow-up data for 48 participants (20 gain frame and 28 loss frame). Using a generalized linear model, we found that the frame presented to parents significantly influenced the trajectory of their child’s physical activity (p = 0.03), with the loss frame condition resulting in more favorable trajectory. Both the willingness to pay for organized physical activities and the perceived barriers to physical activity were similar between the two intervention groups.The change in the reported level of activity of the child over a two-week period was significantly different whether parents were exposed to a loss frame or a gain frame video message.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".