Physical Activity Preferences and Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine physical activity counseling and program preferences in a sample of adults with type 2 diabetes. Specifically, the objectives were to determine physical activity preferences (objective 1), and whether there were any significant differences between age and/or sex groups for these preferences (objective 1a). A subsidiary objective was to explore potential associations of key social-cognitive constructs (ie, self-efficacy and social support) with physical activity preferences (objective 2). METHODS: This exploratory study consisted of a quantitative, secondary analysis of survey data from a national sample of adults with type 2 diabetes (N = 244). A qualitative follow-up employing telephone interviews was conducted with 14 individuals. RESULTS: Consistent with hypotheses, walking was the most preferred physical activity behavior and there was a preference for engaging in physical activity with others. There were significant (P values < .05) differences in counseling and program preferences between demographic (age and sex), and physical activity cognitive scores. For example, a significantly (P < .05) higher physical activity intensity preference was found in men and younger participants. CONCLUSIONS: Tailoring interventions and physical activity programs to the specific preferences of individuals is an important component for health professionals and researchers in facilitating this 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".