Testing social-cognitive mediators for objective estimates of physical activity from the Healthy Eating and Active Living for Diabetes in Primary Care Networks (HEALD-PCN) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: More evidence from prospective studies is needed to determine 'if' and 'how' social cognitive constructs mediate behaviour change. In a longitudinal study, we aimed to examine potential social cognitive mediators of objectively measured physical activity (PA) behaviour among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who participated in a six-month PA intervention. METHODS: All participants from the proven effective Healthy Eating and Active Living for Diabetes in Primary Care Networks trial were included for this secondary analysis. Change in pedometer-derived daily step counts (baseline to six months) was the outcome of interest. Primary constructs of interest were from Social Cognitive Theory, however constructs from and Theory of Planned Behaviour were also tested in a mediating variable framework using a product-of-coefficients test. RESULTS: The sample (N = 198) had a mean age of 59.5 (SD 8.3) years, haemoglobin A1c 6.8% (SD 1.1), 50% women, BMI 33.6 kg/m(2) (SD 6.5), systolic pressure 125.6 mmHg (SD 16.2) and average daily steps were 5879 (SD 3130). Daily pedometer-determined steps increased for the intervention group compared to usual care control at six-months (1481 [SD 2631] vs. 336 [SD 2712]; adjusted p = .002). There was a significant action theory test effect for 'planning' (A = .21, SE = .10, p = .037), and significant conceptual theory test results for 'subjective norms' (B = 657, SE = 312, p = .037) and 'cons' (B = -664, SE = 270, p = .015). None of the constructs satisfied the criteria for mediation. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to account for the effect of a pedometer-based PA intervention for people with T2D through our examination of mediators. Our findings are inconsistent with some literature concerning PA interventions in diabetes; this may be due to variability in measures used or in study populations.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".