Peer-delivered physical activity interventions: an overlooked opportunity for physical activity promotion
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
The purpose of this systematic review was to catalogue and synthesize published studies that have examined the effects of peer-delivered physical activity interventions on physical activity behavior. Ten published studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The following information was extracted from each study: study design and duration; characteristics of the sample, peers, and interventions; and physical activity outcomes. In all articles reporting within-groups analyses, peer-delivered interventions led to increases in physical activity behavior. When compared to alternatives, peer-delivered interventions were just as effective as professionally delivered interventions and more effective than control conditions for increasing physical activity. Only three studies included measures of social cognitive variables, yielding some evidence that peers may enhance self-efficacy and self-determined forms of motivation. Based on these findings, interventionists are encouraged to include peer mentors in their intervention delivery models. Investigators are encouraged to pursue a more comprehensive understanding of factors that can explain and maximize the impact of peer-delivered activity interventions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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