The effect of theory-based interventions on physical activity participation among overweight/obese individuals: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little attention has been paid to the evaluation of the long-term impact of theory-based interventions on physical activity participation among overweight/obese individuals after the interventions have ended. The primary aim of this systematic review was to investigate the long-term effectiveness of theory-based interventions increasing physical activity and identify the most effective techniques for behaviour change among overweight/obese individuals. The secondary aim was to investigate the effect of these interventions on theoretical variables. Eighteen studies were reviewed. Among these studies, three reported significant short-term and two long-term effects of interventions on physical activity participation. Most of the studies observed a significant short- or long-term effect of time on this behaviour. Theoretical frameworks most often applied included the Behavioural Model and the Social Learning/Cognitive Theory. However, few of the studies reported any impact on theoretical variables. The most prevalent techniques consisted of providing opportunities for social comparison and instruction as well as self-monitoring. Leading techniques differentiating the experimental group from the control group included prompting practice and intentions formation and barriers identification. Although the combination of these three techniques appears successful, the long-term impact of theory-based interventions remains ambiguous.
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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".