Leveraging context-specific behavioral economic principles to enable patients to change their physical activity patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores how context-specific behavioral economic principles could be employed to tailor interventions to support patients' efforts to modify day-to-day routines. Using adapted geo-ethnography techniques, interviews collected in-depth descriptions about facilitators and barriers to physical activity (PA), and contexts influencing decisions about day-to-day activities. Data were analyzed using the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation - Behaviour (COM-B) model for behavior change and MINDSPACE behavioral economic principles as coding frameworks. Twenty-nine patients (19 men, 10 women) aged 50-79 participated. Findings indicate patients were motivated and capable of increasing PA but were challenged to identify opportunities to adapt day-to-day routines for increasing PA. Patients described disrupting default routines, increasing commitments, changing the messenger, and introducing incentives as potentially useful behavioral economic principles to improve day-to-day decisions about increasing PA. Patients had insight into potential behavioral economic principles, although they were not previously educated, and were valuable partners in developing research and clinic-based behavioral economic intervention strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".