Increasing Physical Activity Through Principles of Habit Formation in New Gym Members: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The promotion of physical activity (PA) is paramount to public health, yet interventions in the social cognitive tradition have yielded negligible improvements. The limited progression may be due to an overreliance on intention as the proximal determinant of behavior and a lack of consideration of implicit/automatic processes. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a habit formation intervention on PA over 8 weeks in a two-arm parallel design, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants (n = 94) were new gym members with the intention to engage in PA but below international PA guidelines at baseline, who were randomized into a control or habit experimental group. The experimental group attended a workshop (at baseline) and received a follow-up booster phone call at week 4. The primary outcome of the study was minutes of moderate-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) at week 8. The secondary outcome was a manipulation check to determine if the experimental group effectively incorporated habit-building constructs (cues and practice consistency). RESULTS: The experimental group showed a significant increase in MVPA after 8 weeks in both accelerometry (d = 0.39, p = .04) and self-report (d = 0.53, p = .01) compared with the control group. The experimental group also showed an increase in use of cues (d = 0.56, p < .001) and practice consistency (d = 0.40, p = .01) at week 8. CONCLUSION: The results contribute to the initial validity of increasing PA through a focus on preparation cues and practice consistency. Future research should replicate these findings and extend the duration of assessment to evaluate whether PA changes are sustained. Registered Trial Number NCT02785107.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".