Effects of message framing on self-management behaviour among patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Accumulating evidence has indicated successful diabetes health education can potentially help to improve blood sugar levels in people with diabetes. However, with a rapid rise in the number of people with diabetes cases and the increasing burden on healthcare, it is often difficult for healthcare providers to find suitable time to provide health education to meet their needs. Thus, more novel and effective ways are needed to conduct education. The message frame provides a new perspective for implementation of a more effective health education in the form of changing information presentation, and the same objective content is described in either positive or negative language or outcomes. Gain framing emphasises the positive consequences of adhering to useful recommendations, while loss framing highlights the negative consequences of the non-adherence. The purpose of our research is to potentially explore the effectiveness of diabetes education based on message framing on the self-management behaviour. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A single-blind, three-arm randomised controlled trial involving 84 participants will be conducted. The participants will be assigned into three groups randomly in a 1:1:1 ratio and will receive 12-week intervention. Patients in group 1 will be provided gain framing education videos about the self-management skills for type 2 diabetes, patients in group 2 will be given education videos based on loss framing and patients in group 3 will receive education with no specific message framing. The primary outcome is self-management behaviour. The secondary outcomes will be self-efficacy, patient activation, diabetes-related knowledge and attitude, quality of life and blood glucose level. All outcomes will be measured at baseline and 12 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of School of Nursing, Jilin University (No. 2020101501). The research results will be published in peer-reviewed publications and presented in international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR 2100045772; Pre-results.
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 | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.007 |
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".