A randomised controlled trial of the effects of implementation intentions on women's walking behaviour
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combination of low physical activity rates and increased cardiovascular deaths indicate the overwhelming need for behaviour change interventions that can effectively promote physical activity among sedentary women. This 11-week randomised controlled trial examined the effects of an implementation intentions intervention on sedentary women's walking behaviour. Seventy-five women (M age = 48.17) were randomly assigned to either a control group where they were required to self-monitor their daily pedometer-determined step count or to an experimental group where they were asked to form specific walking plans (i.e. implementation intentions) every 6 weeks and to self-monitor their daily pedometer-determined step count. Measures of exercise intentions, perceived behavioural control, scheduling and barrier self-efficacy were administered at baseline, week 6 and week 11. Analyses indicated higher step counts over the first 6 weeks for women in the experimental condition (p < 0.02). Furthermore, higher self-efficacy to schedule (p < 0.01) and overcome walking barriers (p < 0.03), as well as higher perceptions of behavioural control (p < 0.02) were found at week 11 for women in the experimental versus control condition. However, none of the control beliefs were found to mediate the effects of the intervention on the women's walking behaviour. Furthermore, the intervention did not have any effect on the strength of the goal intention-behaviour relationship. The findings suggest implementation intentions are an effective strategy for initiating leisure-time walking within sedentary women.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it