MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Novel Strategies For Efficient Promotion Of Physical Activity: Addressing Choice Architecture

2022· article· en· W4294817230 on OpenAlexaff
Sivan Klil‐Drori, Soham Rej

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptimismBehavioral economicsChoice architectureScopusPreferenceHealth promotionPsychologyScientific evidenceMedicineInefficiencyMEDLINEGerontologyApplied psychologyPublic healthBusinessSocial psychologyEconomicsNursingFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the challenges in promotion of physical activity (PA) and explore Behavioral Economics (B/E) concepts of choice architecture to design efficient strategies. INTRODUCTION: Many studies show the various health benefits of PA. Moreover, inactivity is a significant risk factor for morbidity and mortality. However, while guidelines and prescriptions for PA have long existed, 60-85% of the world’s population still lead a sedentary lifestyle. Thus, more efficient implementation strategies of PA guidelines are urgently needed. METHODS: We conducted an integrated review that merges the evidence for health benefits of PA, epidemiology of inactivity along with related consequences, and concepts from B/E that explain the inefficiency of current implementation strategies. We searched scientific publications in healthcare and economics search engines, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Research Library, ScienceDirect, and Scopus. Epidemiology data for the prevalence of sedentary lifestyle and its consequences was evaluated. RESULTS: This review identifies critical factors in choice architecture. We demonstrate cognitive biases that impact decision making and explain the common preference for sedentary behavior. Key principles in B/E are presented, such as: “optimism bias”: the assurance that our present behavior will probably not have a negative result in the future. “Present bias”: a basic preference for immediate profit while neglecting delayed future gratification, making the long-term benefits of exercise transparent. “Loss aversion”: the discomfort of loss is more dominant than the comfort of the benefit: exercise is perceived as an immediate loss - it is effortful and involves discomfort, while the future health benefits are non-existent at present. Additionally, “status quo bias”: the clear preference to avoid (behavior) change. We created a plan for PA promotion that integrates these challenges in decision making. The innovative program will provide PA advocates with effective tools for applying PA guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a new approach to promoting PA guidelines is required to reduce the high prevalence of inactivity. Addressing cognitive biases and other factors in choice architecture is essential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicBehavioral Health and Interventions→French-language works237,207→