Factors associated with participation in resistance training: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Regular participation in resistance training (RT) is critical to health and recommended in most international physical activity guidelines. Few people, however, participate in RT. The purpose of this review was to assess the demographic, behavioural, intrapersonal, interpersonal and environmental factors associated with participating in RT. DATA SOURCES: Eligible studies were from English peer-reviewed published articles that examined correlates or determinants of RT in adult samples. Searches were performed from August 2015 to April 2016 in six databases. RESULTS: We identified 51 independent data sets, from nine countries, primarily of moderate to high quality, and 23 factors related to participating in RT. Education, perceived health status, quality of life, affective judgements, self-efficacy, intention, self-regulation behaviours, subjective norm and programme leadership were associated with RT. CONCLUSION: Low education levels and poor health status were associated with low participation rates in RT. Intrapersonal factors including affective judgements, self-efficacy, and self-regulation behaviours, and interpersonal factors including subjective norms and programme leadership may be important for promoting RT behaviours.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".