Explaining physical activity levels from a self-efficacy perspective: the physical activity counseling trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Physical Activity Counseling (PAC) trial compared the effects of a 13-week primary care physical activity (PA) intervention that incorporated a PA counselor into a health care practice compared to a control condition on PA over a 25-week period and showed group differences in PA were present at 6 and 13 weeks. PURPOSE: The main purpose was to examine the mediating effect of 6-week task and barrier self-efficacy on the intervention versus control group/13-week PA relationships. A secondary purpose was to determine whether task and barrier self-efficacy were significantly related to PA throughout the trial for both groups. METHOD: Participants were primarily sedentary individuals who received a 2- to 4-min PA intervention from their primary care provider, after which they were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 61) or control condition (n = 59). Self-reported PA and task (barrier) self-efficacy measures were obtained during (i.e., baseline, 6 and 13 weeks) and after (i.e., 19 and 25 weeks) the intervention in both groups. RESULTS: Six-week task and barrier self-efficacy had a small mediating effect. Furthermore, barrier self-efficacy had a significant relationship with PA throughout the trial, whereas the relationship between task self-efficacy and PA became significantly weaker as the trial progressed. CONCLUSIONS: PAC interventions among primarily sedentary individuals should be partly based on barrier and task self-efficacy. However, the stability of the task self-efficacy/PA relationship needs further examination.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".