Physical Activity and Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore (1) patterns in physical activity behaviors and (2) the meaning and personal significance of social cognitive theory (SCT) constructs on physical activity, across gender and income groups among people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: Albertans, 18 years and older (x- = 63, SD = 12.08) with T2DM (N = 1614) completed self-report measures of demographic characteristics and physical activity. Two-way, between-groups analyses of variance (ANOVAs) assessed main and interaction effects of gender and income on leisure time physical activity (LTPA). A subsample of these participants (n = 20) subsequently completed qualitative telephone interviews to provide contextual understanding of the quantitative data and to explore salient SCT influences on physical activity. RESULTS: Significant findings indicated that men participate in more LTPA than women do, and those from the highest income group participate in more LTPA than low- or middle-income groups (P < .01). Interview results suggested that walking is the most popular form of physical activity; however, gender and income groups differ in other leisure and nonleisure physical activities. Furthermore, patterns for SCT constructs related to physical activity were apparent across gender and income, most noticeably for self-efficacy and environmental and situational influences. Specifically among men, noteworthy differences existed between income groups for self-control and reinforcement strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the need for more sensitive self-report measures and objective measures of physical activity to help distinguish whether true differences exist between certain demographic groups. Moreover, interventions that promote walking may be beneficial for people with T2DM, provided that appropriate environmental and policy changes occur to accommodate walking and other physical activity behaviors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".