Parents, personalized infographics, and the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents influence children's health behaviours and are the main audience for the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines (24HMG) for Children and Youth. Depending on how current guidelines are framed, they may enact negative feelings, such as guilt, among parents. As part of the knowledge translation process, it is important for researchers to provide meaningful feedback and consider how to constructively frame that feedback. This pilot study examined the effect of message framing on parents' attitudes, emotions, and intentions to encourage their children's 24HMG adherence using a randomized design and targeted infographics. Parents (n=32) of children and youth completed a one-time survey about their physical activity (PA), perceptions and emotions of the 24HMG, instrumental attitudes (IA), intentions, and task self-efficacy (TSE). Parents were then randomized to one of three message-framing groups (gain, mixed, loss-framed) and were asked to react to a framed infographic summarizing a child's movement behaviours and prompts for improving 24HMG adherence. There were no significant group differences in attitudes, TSE, and intentions. However, parents with higher TSE had significantly greater intentions to encourage their children's adherence to the 24HMG. Regardless of self-beliefs, most parents (75%) were unfamiliar with the guidelines and 87.5% indicated they would like to receive an infographic with their child's 24HMG following participation in a research study. While this pilot explored parents' reactions to a hypothetical child, future research should explore the best methods of communicating with parents regarding their children's actual movement behaviours to promote 24HMG adherence for children and youth.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".