Five-year predictors of physical activity decline among adults in low-income communities: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity in North America is now endemic, and increased understanding of the determinants of physical inactivity is critical. This analysis identified predictors of declines in physical activity over 5 years among adults in low-income, inner-city neighbourhoods. METHODS: Data on leisure time physical activity were collected in telephone interviews in 1992 and 1997 from 765 adults (47% of baseline respondents), as part of the evaluation of a community-based cardiovascular disease risk reduction program. RESULTS: One-third of 527 participants who were physically active at baseline, were inactive in 1997. Predictors of becoming inactive included female sex (OR = 1.63 95% CI (1.09, 2.43)), older age (1.02 (1.01, 1.04)), higher BMI (1.57 (1.03, 2.40)), poor self-rated health (1.39 (1.05, 1.84)), lower self-efficacy for physical activity (1.46 (1.00, 2.14)), and not using a neighborhood facility for physical activity (1.61 (1.02, 2.14)). CONCLUSION: These results highlight the fact that a variety of variables play a role in determining activity level, from demographic variables such as age and sex, to psychosocial and environmental variables. In addition, these results highlight the important role that other health-related variables may play in predicting physical activity level, in particular the observed association between baseline BMI and the increased risk of becoming inactive over time. Lastly, these results demonstrate the need for multi-component interventions in low-income communities, which target a range of issues, from psychosocial factors, to features of the physical environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".