Leisure-time physical activity in individuals with osteoporosis : associations with psychological well-being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With approximately 16% of the Canadian population living with osteoporosis, and rates expected to increase (Osteoporosis Canada, 2009), cost-effective treatment modalities that improve bone health and psychological well-being reflect an important public health agenda. Physical activity has been implicated as one non-pharmaceutical mechanism to help improve psychological well-being in the general population (Fox, Stathi, McKenna, & Davis, 2007) and in people diagnosed with osteoporosis (Osteoporosis Canada, 2007). The purpose of this investigation was to determine the association between leisure-time physical activity (LTP A) and well-being in people diagnosed with osteoporosis. A secondary purpose, using Basic Needs Theory (BNT; Deci & Ryan, 2002) was to determine if the fulfillment of three psychological needs (i.e., competence, autonomy and relatedness) mediated the relationship between LTP A and well-being. People diagnosed with osteoporosis (N= 190; Mage = 68.14; SDage = 11.54) were asked to complete a battery of questionnaires assessing L TP A, hedonic and eudaimonic well-being and perceived psychological need satisfaction in physical activity contexts. Bivariate correlations revealed a pattern of negligible (r's -0.02 to 0.35) to small correlations between LTP A and well-being with contextual positive affect (r = 0.24) and subjective vitality (r = 0.22) demonstrating statistical significance (p < .01). Results of the multiple mediation analysis indicated that perceived satisfaction of the three psychological needs mediated the relationship between LTPA and well-being with perceived competence emerging as a unique mediator. As such, LTP A was positively associated with well-being in people who are diagnosed with osteoporosis, and the fulfillment of the three psychological needs may be the mechanism through which this 111 effect is carried. Health promotion specialists and practitioners should encourage patients with osteoporosis to engage in LTP A, and support their needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness. Practical implications for researchers and health promotion specialists are discussed in terms ofthe results of this investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".