Individual, dyadic, collaborative planning, physical activity, and nutrition: A randomized controlled trial in parent–child dyads.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the effects of individual, dyadic, and collaborative planning on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA; primary outcome) and energy-dense food intake (secondary outcome) in dyads of parents and their 9-15-year-old children. Individual planning reflects an "I-for-me" planning of one person's behavior. Collaborative ("we-for-us") planning refers to joint planning of both dyad members' behavior, whereas dyadic ("we-for-me") planning involves joint planning of only the target person's behavior. METHOD: = 247 dyads participated in a randomized controlled trial with individual, dyadic, or collaborative physical activity (PA) planning and control conditions (education about PA, sedentary behavior, nutrition, energy intake-expenditure balance). MVPA was measured with ActiGraph wGT3X-BT accelerometers at baseline, 1-week, and 36-week follow-ups. Energy-dense food intake was self-reported at baseline, 9-week, and 36-week follow-ups. Linear mixed models were fit for parents and children separately. RESULTS: At the 36-week follow-up, children in the dyadic "we-for-me" planning condition decreased their MVPA compared to the control condition. At the same time, children in the dyadic planning condition also decreased energy-dense food intake at the 36-week follow-up. No effects were found among children in individual and collaborative PA planning conditions. Parents in any experimental conditions decreased energy-dense food intake. CONCLUSIONS: Children's decrease in MVPA in dyadic PA planning condition was offset by a reduction of energy intake, which may represent a compensatory mechanism. The limited effectiveness of the dyadic "we-for-me" interventions in parent-child dyads may result from young people's needs for individuation and their reactance to parental support. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".