A Mobile Phone App Intervention to Promote Healthy Salt Intake Among Adults: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is sound evidence associating high salt intake and a greater risk of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular diseases. High salt intake has been observed in several populations worldwide. Therefore, promoting healthier salt consumption has been encouraged as a low-cost strategy to reduce this risk factor. However, these strategies need to be sound, built on theoretical and methodological bases, and consider the target population’s context. OBJECTIVE This protocol aims to describe a mobile phone app intervention to promote healthy salt intake among adults. METHODS This is an experimental and longitudinal study protocol conducted in three modules. Module 1 refers to the planning of the intervention based on the Behaviour Change Wheel framework. Module 2 is the development of the mobile phone app intervention based on the date of module 1. In module 3, the intervention will be evaluated using a randomized controlled study, with three steps of data collection in a 2-month follow-up in a sample of 86 adults (43 participants for each group: the control group and intervention group) recruited from the primary health care centers of a Brazilian town. The discretionary salt intake questionnaire will assess salt consumption, the app usability will be assessed using the System Usability Scale, and psychosocial variables (habit, intention, and self-efficacy) will also be measured. RESULTS Recruitment began in October 2021, and the follow-up will end in August 2022. The results of this study are expected to be published in 2023. CONCLUSIONS Results from this study will help people to control salt intake when cooking at home, will stimulate self-care, will work as an alternative or supportive method in the relationship between health care professionals and patients, and will contribute to implementing the app intervention to promote healthy salt intake on a large scale. CLINICALTRIAL The Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry RBR-4s8qyyq; https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-4s8qyyq INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/37853
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 | 0.035 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.016 |
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".