MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132681222 · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2270-8

Understanding for whom, under what conditions, and how group-based physical activity interventions are successful: a realist review

2015· review· en· W2132681222 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha M. Harden, Desmond McEwan, Benjamin D. Sylvester, Megan Kaulius, Geralyn R. Ruissen, Shauna M. Burke, Paul A. Estabrooks, Mark R. Beauchamp

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsPsychological interventionCitationMedicineScience Citation IndexHealth psychologyVariety (cybernetics)MEDLINESocial Sciences Citation IndexPublic healthGerontologyNursingLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Participation in group-based physical activity (GBPA) interventions has been found to result in higher levels of exercise adherence and program compliance. However, previous reviews of GBPA programs have provided limited insight regarding 'for whom', 'under what conditions', and 'how' these interventions increase physical activity behavior. METHODS: A realist review was conducted by following the seven recommended iterative and overlapping steps (J Health Serv Res Policy 10S1:21-34, 2005). The review was limited to group dynamics-based interventions for adults (>17 years of age). The search was conducted in PubMed, PsychInfo, and Web of Science search engines associated with the Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and MEDLINE. RESULTS: Using a realist review approach, data from 52 studies were synthesized. Of those, 92% (n = 48) reported significant increases in participant physical activity. The synthesis resulted in three main observations and recommendations. DISCUSSION: GBPA interventions have worked for a variety of populations, including those who are hard to reach; however, more research is needed on moderating factors to determine for whom different GBPA programs may be effective. Second, previous interventions have varied in the duration, frequency, and number of group-based strategies used, and comparative effectiveness research may be necessary to isolate the mechanisms of effect. Third, these interventions have been conducted in a diverse range of settings, using a variety of research designs and analytical approaches. Less information is known about the costs or sustainability of these programs in their intended settings. CONCLUSION: The results of this realist review have important implications for practice, refining trial designs, and replication across diverse populations and settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.177
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.177
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.629
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.122 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207