Social-cognitive theories for predicting physical activity behaviours of employed women with and without young children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic disease interventions for women have been understudied in the workplace domain. Understanding the role of cognitions in individual behaviour can help motivate change and suggest directions for achieving improvements in health. The purpose of this study was to identify psychosocial constructs and social-cognitive theories [e.g. Transtheoretical model (TTM), Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)] that are most salient for explaining physical activity behaviour among employed women (n = 1183). Demographic information, and social-cognitive measures related to physical activity, intention and behaviours (e.g. stage of change, energy expenditure) were assessed. A series of multiple regression analyses predicting intention, energy expenditure and stage of change were conducted separately for: (1) women with young children (n = 302), and (2) women without young children (n = 881) for each of the respective social-cognitive theories. Although taken as a whole the results were relatively similar between the two sub-groups of women for each of the socio-cognitive theories examined in this study, differences were observed in the relative contributions of the theoretical constructs between the two sub-groups. Results also indicate that self-efficacy and intention were the strongest predictors of behaviour among both women with and without young children. The explained variances (R(2)) for the theories examined in this study for different sub-groups ranged from 16 to 60%, generally reflecting what has been reported in other studies within the physical activity domain. The results of this study could be useful in guiding future research and in designing physical activity intervention programs for these specific population groups. Integrating approaches of individual lifestyle change while addressing issues related to creating supportive environments for women in various life stages is a suggested strategy for future work in this area.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".