Social support and physical activity participation among healthy adults: a systematic review of prospective studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this review was to determine the direction and strength of the prospective relationship between social support and PA among healthy adults. A systematic review was conducted; including studies up until December 2015, in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus. Published English and French written studies were included if the reported study used a longitudinal design; examined the relationship between social support and PA over at least two intervals; and assessed a sample of healthy adults between 18–65 years of age. Two reviewers independently extracted study information and independently assessed the risk of bias in each study. The initial search yielded a total of 2892 citations, and 20 studies were included in the review. Follow-up period ranged from 2 weeks to 10 years. Irrespective of the type and source of support, the strength and direction of the association between social support and PA was inconsistent across studies, with effect sizes ranging from small to large and from negative to positive. Based on meta-analysis, there was a small positive association between support for PA from friends and future PA. Researchers are encouraged to continue to conduct longitudinal studies to better understand the relationship between social support and PA.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".