MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401888156 · doi:10.2196/56611

Effectiveness of an e-Book on Bone Health as Educational Material for Adolescents: Single-Group Experimental Study

2024· article· en· W4401888156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nor Aini Jamil, Jashwiny Dhanaseelan, Nurin Athirah Buhari

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
KeywordsMedicinePhysical activityBone healthMalayOsteoporosisPhysical therapyKuala lumpurWeb surveyGerontologyDentistryInternal medicineBone mineral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Improved bone health during adolescence can have lifelong implications, reducing the risk of bone fragility. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an e-book in increasing knowledge about and promoting healthy practices related to bone health among Malay adolescents in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Methods: A total of 72 adolescents (female: n=51, 71%; age: mean 15, SD 0.74 y) were recruited from selected secondary schools. The participants answered a pretest web-based questionnaire on sociodemographic data, knowledge about osteoporosis, and physical activity. A video call was conducted to assess dietary calcium intake. Participants were provided with a link to an e-book on bone health and instructed to read it within 2 weeks. Postintervention assessments included those for knowledge, physical activity, dietary calcium intake, and acceptance of the e-book. Results: There was a significant increase in the median knowledge score, which was 40.6% (IQR 31.3%-46.9%) during the pretest and 71.9% (IQR 53.9%-81.3%) during the posttest (P<.001). However, no changes were observed in dietary calcium intake or physical activity levels. Most participants did not meet the recommended calcium requirements (61/62, 98%) and exhibited sedentary behavior (pretest: 51/62, 82%; posttest: 48/62, 77%). The e-book, however, was well accepted, with the majority reporting that they understood the contents (70/72, 97%), liked the graphics (71/72, 99%), and approved of the layout (60/72, 83%) and font size (66/72, 92%) used. Conclusions: The developed e-book effectively increases knowledge levels related to bone health and is well accepted among participants. However, this educational material did not improve bone health practices. Additional strategies are necessary to bridge the gap between knowledge and behavior change.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.415 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207