Why are adult women physically active? A systematic review of prospective cohort studies to identify intrapersonal, social environmental and physical environmental determinants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review available evidence from prospective cohort studies to identify intrapersonal, social environmental and physical environmental determinants of moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) among working-age women. METHODS: Six databases were searched to identify all prospective cohort studies that reported on intrapersonal (e.g. self-efficacy and socioeconomic status [SES]), social (e.g. crime, area SES and social support) and/or physical (e.g. weather, work and recreation) environmental determinants of MVPA in working-age (mean 18-65 years) women. A qualitative synthesis including harvest plots was completed. PROSPERO: CRD42014009750 RESULTS: Searching identified 17,387 potential articles; 97 were used in the analysis. The majority (n = 87 studies) reported on ≥1 intrapersonal determinant. Very few (n = 34) examined factors in the social or physical environments, and none looked at social policy. Positive and consistent influencers included higher self-efficacy (n = 18/23), self-rated health (n = 8/13) and intentions (n = 10/11) and perceived behavioural control (n = 5/7) to be physically active. Having children in the household was negatively related to MVPA (n = 9/15). CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity intervention studies should consider a woman's level of self-efficacy and perceived behavioural control to be physically active. Additional studies are needed on the impact of children in the household, having a spouse/partner and using group goal setting. More evidence is needed to evaluate the impact of environmental factors.
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 | 0.015 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".