Effect of Cross Theoretical Model of Behaviour Change and Motivation Interview on Self-Management Behaviour
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the effects of a trans-theoretical model (TTM) of behavioural change plus motivational interviewing on self-management behavior and quality of life (QoL) in patients with intracranial aneurysm. Methods. A total of 94 patients with intracranial aneurysm treated in the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University from 2019 to 04/2021-04 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 49 patients used TTM + motivational interview as the observation group (Obs group), and 45 patients used the traditional method as the control group (Con group). The Self-Management Behavior Scale for Patients with Intracranial Aneurysm was used for analyzing the changes in the self-management behavior of the two groups of patients, and the MOS 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) was used to analyze the changes in the QoL of the patients. The incidence of adverse events after 6 months of intervention was counted. In addition, the Barthel Index (BI) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MOCA) were used to evaluate the recovery effects of patients. Logistic regression was conducted for analyzing the risk factors of adverse cerebrovascular events. Results. After treatment, the Con group got lower self-management behavior score than the Obs group ( P < 0.05 ), and also got lower SF-36 scores, BI, and MOCA scores than the Obs group ( P < 0.05 ). Age and a history of hypertension were independent risk factors for adverse events. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test was adopted for testing the goodness of fit of the regression equation ( P = 0.903 ). With the established model, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting adverse events in patients with intracranial aneurysm was determined to be 0.851, indicating that the model performed well as a risk prediction model. Conclusion. TTM + motivational interviewing can help improve the self-management behavior and QoL of patients with intracranial aneurysm without increasing the occurrence of adverse events.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".