Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38022955›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023

Guidelines for assessment of affect-related constructs.

David M Williams, Ryan E Rhodes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David M WilliamsDepartment of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, United States.
Ryan E RhodesSchool of Exercise Science, Physical and Health Education, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Funding

Empirical testing of a widely available insurance-based monetary incentive program for exercise: A randomized trialR01CA262894 · NCI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI Omar Galarraga, David M Williams · 2021 to 2026
$3.2M
Comparing a recommendation for self-paced versus moderate intensity physical activity for midlife adults: an RCTR01AG069349 · NIA · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAMS, DAVID M · 2020 to 2024
$2.3M
Early phase clinical trial to test the feasibility of an ACT-based physical activity promotion program for adults with depressive symptomsR34AT011302 · NCCIH · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAMS, DAVID M · 2021 to 2022
$724k
NCCIH NIH HHS R34 AT011302NCI NIH HHS R01 CA262894NIA NIH HHS R01 AG069349
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on affect-related constructs as determinants of health behavior is increasing. The Affect and Health Behavior Framework (AHBF) provides a schematic structure to label, organize, and integrate affect-related constructs. To further facilitate research and theory development in health behavior science, the purpose of the present paper is to provide a critical review and guidelines for assessment of the affect-related constructs in the AHBF. The paper is organized based on the categories of constructs in the AHBF: Affective response to health behavior, incidental affect, affect processing, and affectively charged motivation. Future research should work toward parsing constructs where possible as well as identifying overlap. Researchers are advised to consider conceptual underpinnings and methodological nuances when assessing affect-related constructs in order to build a cumulative science of affective determinants of health behavior.

Indexed as

affective associationsaffective judgmentsaffective responseanticipated affectassessmenthealth behavior

Identifiers

PMID38022955
PMCPMC10651742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.