Can Physical Activity Improve Depression, Coping & Motivation to Exercise in Children and Youth Experiencing Challenges to Mental Wellness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the influence of a physical activity (PA) program (Move Your Mood) on children and adolescents receiving services in community mental health clinics. Participants (N = 35) were referred to the (PA) program by their mental health therapist. Coaches engaged participants in individual one-on-one and group activity sessions for eight weeks. Participant heart rates were monitored during physical activity sessions and designed to achieve moderate to high intensity. Participants reported significant improvements in mood immediately following physical activity. Measures of motivation to exercise, coping, and depression were taken before program participation, at 4-weeks, and at completion of the 8 week program. Results indicate that the PA program significantly improved child and adolescent ability to cope as well as their intrinsic motive to exercise. In addition, the PA program significantly reduced self-reported depressive symptoms. Qualitative analysis indicates that social supports and enhanced self-efficacy resulting from physical activity engagement and sessions are key factors associated with program outcomes. The current study provides evidence to support three key psychosocial theories: social interaction, distraction hypothesis, and mastery hypothesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".