MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164680050 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v7n3p215

Theory-Based Interventions in Physical Activity: A Systematic Review of Literature in Iran

2014· review· en· W2164680050 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jalal Abdi, Hassan Eftekhar, Fatemeh Estebsari, Roya Sadeghi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
KeywordsPsychological interventionPromotion (chess)Social cognitive theoryPsychologyApplied psychologyHealth promotionSystematic reviewPhysical educationEmpirical researchMedical educationManagement scienceMedicineMEDLINESocial psychologyNursingPublic healthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lack of physical activity is ranked fourth among the causes of human death and chronic diseases. Using models and theories to design, implement, and evaluate the health education and health promotion interventions has many advantages. Using models and theories of physical activity, we decided to systematically study the educational and promotional interventions carried out in Iran from 2003 to 2013.Three information databases were used to systematically select papers using key words including Iranian Magazine Database (MAGIRAN), Iran Medical Library (MEDLIB), and Scientific Information Database (SID). Twenty papers were selected and studied .Having been applied in 9 studies, The Trans Theoretical Model (TTM) was the most widespread model in Iran (PENDER in 3 studies, BASNEF in 2, and the Theory of Planned Behavior in 2 studies). With regards to the educational methods, almost all studies used a combination of methods. The most widely used Integrative educational method was group discussion. Only one integrated study was done. Behavior maintenance was not addressed in 75% of the studies. Almost all studies used self-reporting instruments. The effectiveness of educational methods was assessed in none of the studies. Most of the included studies had several methodological weaknesses, which hinder the validity and applicability of their results. According to the findings, the necessity of need assessment in using models, epidemiology and methodology consultation, addressing maintenance of physical activity, using other theories and models such as social marketing and social-cognitive theory, and other educational methods like empirical and complementary are suggested.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207