Physical activity and diabetes: An application of the theory of planned behaviour to explain physical activity for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in an adult population sample
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
Physical activity (PA) plays a key role in the management of Type 1 (T1D) and Type 2 diabetes (T2D) but there are few theory-based, effective programs to promote PA for individuals with diabetes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) in understanding PA in an adult population with T1D or T2D. A total of 2311 individuals (691 T1D; 1614 T2D) completed self-report TPB constructs of attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control (PBC), intention and PA at baseline and 1717 (524 T1D; 1123 T2D) completed the PA measure again at 6-month follow-up. Multi-group Structural Equation Modelling was conducted to: (1) test the fit of the TPB structure (2) determine the TPB structural invariance between the two types of diabetes and (3) to examine the explained variances in PA and compare the strength of associations of the TPB constructs in the two types of diabetes. The TPB constructs explained > or =40% of the variance in intentions for both diabetes groups. In cross-sectional models, the TPB accounted for 23 and 19% of the variance in PA for T1D and T2D, respectively. In prospective models, the TPB explained 13 and 8% of the variance in PA for T1D and T2D, respectively. When adjusting for past PA behaviour, the impact of PBC and intention on behaviour was reduced in both groups. The findings provide evidence for the utility of the TPB for the design of PA promotion interventions for adults with either T1D or T2D.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it