Analyzing Theoretical Mechanisms of Physical Activity Behavior Change in Breast Cancer Survivors: Results from the Activity Promotion (ACTION) Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We previously reported that a physical activity (PA) behavior change intervention based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) increased PA and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. PURPOSE: To examine the effects of our interventions on TPB variables and to determine if PA at 12 weeks follow-up was mediated by TPB variables at 4 weeks. METHODS: Breast cancer survivors (N = 377) were randomly assigned to receive either a standard public health recommendation for PA (SR group), a step pedometer alone, or one of two TPB-based behavior change interventions consisting of print materials (alone or combined with a step pedometer). For the purpose of this study, we compared the two TPB-based intervention groups (INT group) to the SR group. RESULTS: Compared to the SR group, the INT group reported more favorable changes in instrumental attitude (mean difference = 0.13; 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.23; d = 0.19; p = 0.077), intention (mean difference = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.10 to 0.56; d = 0.33; p = 0.006), and planning (mean difference = 0.39; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.73; d = 0.26; p = 0.027). Mediation analyses indicated that both planning and intention partially mediated the effects of the intervention on PA at 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Our TPB-based behavior change intervention resulted in small improvements in the TPB constructs that partially mediated the effects of our intervention on PA behavior. Additional research with the TPB is warranted.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it