Physical Activity and Stages of Change: A Longitudinal Test in Types 1 and 2 Diabetes Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transtheoretical model's (TTM's) ability to predict physical activity stage transitions that incorporates all social-cognitive constructs from the original model has not been conducted among adults with diabetes. The purpose of this study was to test the capacity of the TTM for predicting physical activity stage transitions among adults (≥18 years of age) with type 1 (N = 517) or type 2 (N = 1,157) diabetes over 6 months. Participants were identified by a random-digit dialing telephone protocol through the Alberta Diabetes Registry. Assessments of TTM's stage of physical activity behavior change, self-efficacy, pros and cons, cognitive Processes of Change, and behavioral Processes of Change at baseline (time 1) and 6 months (time 2) were assessed by questionnaire. Over this time period, participants were categorized as having regressed (moved back at least one stage), remained (no stage change), or progressed (moved forward at least one stage). Baseline TTM constructs were analyzed for their ability to predict transition over 6 months. Moderate support for the TTM constructs in predicting physical activity stage transitions was found. Self-efficacy, pros, and behavioral Processes of Change hold relatively strong predictive power for stage progression over 6 months, with very few differences found between the types 1 and 2 diabetes groups. The capacity of the model in predicting stage transition is partially supported. When promoting physical activity among adults with diabetes, targeting self-efficacy, pros, and cognitive Processes of Change may favorably support stage transition in the pre-action stages, while strategies to enhance the behavioral Processes of Change may be appropriate for the Action and Maintenance stages.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".