Understanding physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes after completing an exercise intervention trial: A mediation model of self-efficacy and autonomous motivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was set out to test if autonomous motivation mediated the relationship between self-efficacy and 12-month physical activity (PA) in adults with type 2 diabetes involved in a randomized exercise trial. Participants (n = 234) completed questionnaires measuring barrier self-efficacy at 3 months, autonomous motivation at 6 months, and PA at 12 months. A mediational analysis of longitudinal data revealed that autonomous motivation mediated the relationship between barrier-self-efficacy and PA. High barrier self-efficacy can therefore help predict 12-month PA in adults with type 2 diabetes, although this effect is attenuated by autonomous motivation. Hence, participating in PA for autonomous reasons such as by choice and/or for fun further explains PA at 12 months in this population. Results of this study extend our understanding of the motivational constructs involved in PA in the maintenance phase. This study has important theoretical implications in that it helps to organize and consolidate well-known correlates of PA by proposing a temporal relationship between them that could be tailored in interventions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".