Group versus individual approach? A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to conduct a meta-analysis to empirically compare the relative merits of different contexts typically employed in the physical activity intervention literature for five categories of outcomes: adherence, social interaction, quality of life, physiological effectiveness, and functional effectiveness. Four contexts were examined: home-based programmes not involving contact from researchers or health-care professionals, home-based programmes that involved some contact, standard exercise classes, and exercise classes where group-dynamics principles were used to increase cohesiveness (‘true groups’). Standard literature searches produced 44 relevant studies containing 214 effect sizes. Results revealed a common trend across dependent variables; exercising in a true group was superior to exercising in a standard exercise class, which in turn, did not differ from exercising at home with contact. Furthermore, exercising at home with contact was superior to exercising at home without contact. These results have implications for practitioners in terms of the importance of contact and social support in physical 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.
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 | 0.038 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".