Motivation but not perceived control correlated with exercise adherence behaviour 12 months after a randomized controlled trial of exercise training in postmenopausal women.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Recreational physical activity (RPA) participation rates in Canada remain well below internationally recognized minimum levels required for health benefits 1 . This study seeks to identify the psychosocial characteristics correlated with RPA behaviour in postmenopausal women at levels recommended for a healthy lifestyle 12 months after a structured exercise intervention. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was used as a conceptual framework to identify these motivational factors. TPB suggests behavioural intention is the strongest predictor of behavioural performance and is directly impacted by an individual’s motivation 2 . Methods : 12-months after completing the Alberta Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Prevention (ALPHA) Trial, women completed a questionnaire detailing their RPA over the preceding 12 months. Bivariate analysis was used to identify the demographic and psychosocial variables associated with RPA above α=0.10 to be entered into a logistic regression model. Logistic regression models of RPA were conducted for exercise group and control group participants separately. Data analysis was conducted using STATA©12. Results: Motivation, instrumental and affective attitudes were significantly associated with RPA in exercise group participants; however, only motivation remained statistically significant after controlling for possible confounding factors in this group. No associations were found between psychosocial factors and long term RPA after controlling for all significant demographic and psychosocial variables in the control group. Perceived control over exercise behaviour was not associated with exercise adherence in either group. Discussion : TBP constructs were not associated with RPA 12 months post-intervention, with the exception of motivation. There were no significant differences in long term RPA between exercise and control group participants; however, the differences in psychosocial variables between groups suggests participation in the exercise intervention arm may have resulted in long term changes in psychosocial characteristics and attitudes surrounding RPA. Future study to identify the aspects of the intervention that resulted in long-term changes in psychosocial characteristics is needed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".