The effect of implementation intentions on physical activity among obese older adults: A randomised control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physical activity is a key factor for healthy ageing and obesity management. The aim of this study was to test the effect of implementation intentions (IIs) on physical activity and body weight among inactive obese older adults. DESIGN AND MEASURES: At baseline, 101 obese (classes I and II) older adults were randomised to an experimental or a control condition. IIs were delivered in the experimental condition in addition to the common intervention activities. Physical activity (primary outcome) was assessed by means of pedometers. The effect of IIs on body weight (secondary outcome) was also evaluated. RESULTS: No main effects for IIs were observed for all outcomes (ps > 0.21). A significant time × condition interaction was observed for the number of steps per day (p = 0.01). At the 6-month follow-up, the improvement in physical activity was greater among participants in the experimental condition (d = 0.59). None of the measured cognitions moderated or mediated IIs. CONCLUSION: RESULTS suggest that IIs could be appropriate to favour the maintenance of physical activity among inactive obese older adults. However, this technique seems to have limited impacts over and above common intervention activities on weight loss.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".