Predictors of physical activity among rural and small town breast cancer survivors: An application of the theory of planned behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to investigate the utility of the two-component theory of planned behaviour (TPB) in understanding physical activity intentions and behaviour in rural and small town breast cancer survivors. The secondary objective was to elicit the most common behavioural, normative and control beliefs of rural and small town survivors regarding physical activity. Using a cross-sectional survey design, 524 rural and small town breast cancer survivors completed a mailed survey that assessed physical activity and TPB variables. Physical activity intention explained 12% of the variance in physical activity behaviour (p < 0.01) while the TPB constructs together explained 43% of the variance in physical activity intention (p < 0.01). Unique behavioural, normative and control beliefs were elicited from the sample. The two-component TPB framework appears to be a suitable model to initiate an understanding of physical activity determinants among rural and small town breast cancer survivors. These data can be used in the development and establishment of physical activity behaviour interventions and health promotion materials designed to facilitate physical activity behaviour among rural and small town breast cancer survivors.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".