Exercise Behavior in a Community Sample With Diabetes: Understanding the Determinants of Exercise Behavioral Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the factors associated with exercise behavior among adults with diabetes. METHODS: Exercise behavior (stage of exercise readiness and energy expenditure) and potential determinants were measured on a subsample (n = 46) of adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes from a randomized population-based telephone survey. Participants were assessed at baseline and at a 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Sociodemographic and biomedical characteristics did not significantly differ between the stages of exercise behavior. Scores on the psychosocial constructs of self-efficacy, behavioral processes, self-concept, and social support were significantly higher for those in the action stage than those in the preaction stage of exercise readiness. Self-efficacy and behavioral process of change were significantly associated with energy expenditure; self-efficacy was the strongest predictor in the longitudinal analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings may generate direction for theory development and guide health and medical practitioners when intervening on the specific constructs. Population- and community-based surveys have utility for assessing diabetes health-related behavior (e.g., exercise behavior).
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".