Testing and Optimizing Guided Thinking Tasks to Promote Physical Activity: Protocol for a Randomized Factorial Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insufficient physical activity is associated with various health risks; however, most current physical activity interventions have critical barriers to scalability. Delivering interventions via technology and identifying active and inert components in early-phase development are ways to build more efficient and scalable interventions. We developed a novel intervention to promote physical activity that targets 3 brief guided thinking tasks, separately and in combination, using brief audio recordings: (1) episodic future thinking (EFT), (2) positive affective imagery (PAI), and (3) planning. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this GeT (Guided Thinking) Active study is to optimize a scalable guided thinking intervention to promote physical activity using principles of the Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST). Mechanism-focused analyses will inform which components are optimal candidates for inclusion in an intervention package and which need refinement. METHODS: We will enroll 192 participants randomized to receive intervention components delivered via an audio recording that they will listen to prior to weekly in-lab physical activity sessions. Participants in the high dose conditions will also be instructed to listen to the audio recording 4 additional days each week. We will evaluate effects of the components on physical activity over 6 weeks in a 2 (EFT vs recent thinking) × 2 (PAI vs neutral imagery) × 2 (planning vs no planning) × 2 (dose: 5×/week vs 1×/week) full factorial randomized trial. RESULTS: The National Cancer Institute funded this study (R21CA260360) on May 13, 2021. Participant recruitment began in February 2022. Data analysis will begin after the completion of data collection. CONCLUSIONS: The GeT Active study will result in a scalable, audio-recorded intervention that will accelerate progress toward the full development of guided thinking interventions to promote physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05235360; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05235360. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/40908.
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 | 0.043 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.098 | 0.019 |
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".