Cited by 26Cognitive Functions and MemoryDigital Mental Health InterventionsMedication Adherence and Compliance

Investigating message framing to improve adherence to technology-based cognitive interventions.

Open access
Harrell, Erin R., Roque, Nelson A., Boot, Walter R., Charness, Neil·2021·Psychology and Aging

Abstract

A cognitive intervention study was conducted with the purpose of exploring methods to improve adherence to a technology-based cognitive intervention and uncover individual differences that predict adherence (N = 120). The study was divided into two phases: Phase 1, in which participants were asked to follow a prescribed schedule of training that involved gamified neuropsychological tests administered via tablet, and Phase 2, in which participants were asked to play as frequently as they wished. Positive- and negative-framed messages about brain health were delivered via the software program, and measures of cognition, technology proficiency, self-efficacy, technology attitudes, and belief in the benefits of cognitive training were collected. Generalized linear mixed-effects models revealed that positive-framed messages encouraged greater adherence over negative-framed messages, but this effect was restricted to Phase 2 of the study in the absence of social pressure. Measures of memory and self-efficacy demonstrated some, but limited, ability to predict individual differences in adherence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pag0000629

Cites

50 of 51 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People with low self-efficacy feel less equipped to face the burden they encounter and are therefore more willing to engage in training they could benefit from compared to people with high levels of self-efficacy.

    “Recent evidence (Harrell et al., 2021) supports this view, suggesting that people with low self-efficacy feel less equipped to face the burden they encounter. Therefore, they are more willing to engage in the training they could benefit from compared to people with high levels of self-efficacy.”

    From Can We Boost Treatment Adherence to an Online Transdiagnostic Intervention by Adding Self-Enhancement Strategies? Results From a Randomized Controlled Non-inferiority Trial (2021) · cites this paper as Harrell et al., 2021

    The Discussion reports that lower self-efficacy was associated with greater adherence during Phase 1. It offers feeling unable to handle day-to-day tasks as a possible explanation, but calls that explanation speculative; it did not establish that people with low self-efficacy generally feel this way or are more willing to train. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Ekstrom RB, Dermen D, & Harman HH (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests (Vol. 102). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  2. Fox J and Weisberg S (2019). An R Companion to Applied Regression, 3rd Edition. Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA http://tinyurl.com/carbook
  3. Raven JC, Raven JC, & Court JH (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 4: The advanced progressive matrices. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press; San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation
  4. Rogers RW (1983) Cognitive and Physiological Processes in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In: Cacioppo J and Petty R, Eds., Social Psychophysiology, Guilford Press, New York, 153– 177.
  5. Schwarzer R, & Jerusalem M (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In Weinman J, Wright S, & Johnston M, Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35– 37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON
  6. Sullivan J, Edgeley K and Dehoux E (1990) A survey of multiple sclerosis: I. Perceived cognitive problems and compensatory strategy use. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 4, 99– 105.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harrell, E. R., Roque, N. A., Boot, W. R., & Charness, N.
Venue
Psychology and Aging
Published
2021-12
Volume
36
Issue
8
Pages
974-982
ISSN
  • 0882-7974 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1498
OpenAlex
W3197308154
Cited by
24
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology and Aging (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (NIA P01 AG017211, T32 AG049676)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
Keywords
message framing, medication adherence, positive framing, negative framing, self-efficacy, memory, technology proficiency, attitudes toward technology, individual differences, older adults, cognitive training
MeSH terms
Aging, Attitude, Cognition, Humans, Technology, Self Efficacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review