MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402731128 · doi:10.1037/hea0001405

Individual, dyadic, collaborative planning, physical activity, and nutrition: A randomized controlled trial in parent–child dyads.

2024· article· en· W4402731128 on OpenAlexaff
Ewa Kuliś, Zofia Szczuka, Anna Banik, Maria Siwa, Monika Boberska, Dominika Wietrzykowska, Hanna Zaleskiewicz, Ryan E. Rhodes, Theda Radtke, Konstantin Schenkel, Nina Knoll, Urte Scholz, Aleksandra Luszczynska

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNarodowym Centrum Nauki
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPhysical activityClinical psychologyMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.385 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207