Standing Up for Student Health: An Application of the Health Action Process Approach for Reducing Student Sedentary Behavior—Randomised Control Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedentary behavior (SB) has been associated with chronic diseases. University students are a high-risk population for excessive SB. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine if a Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) based intervention, specifically action and coping planning, would increase student break frequency and decrease duration. METHODS: Fifty-two university students (14 men, mean age 23.5) were randomised into an 8-week HAPA-treatment (sedentary behavior) or HAPA-control (nutrition) group. Participants completed an SB questionnaire that assessed break frequency and duration of student SB (Baseline, Weeks 1-6 Treatment, and Weeks 7-8 Follow-up), and received behavioral counselling on either dietary information or SB (Baseline and Week 3). RESULTS: = 0.23). For occupational (student) break frequency and duration, the large accompanying effect sizes favored the treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: The current pilot study provides preliminary evidence for the potential of a HAPA-based intervention for increasing student break frequency in full-time university students.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".