Physical activity self-management interventions for adults with spinal cord injury: Part 1 – use and effectiveness of behavior change techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leisure time physical activity (LTPA) participation for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) is low, highlighting the need for behavior change interventions that target self-management skills. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review aimed to determine which behavior change techniques (BCTs) have been used within LTPA self-management interventions for persons with SCI, and which BCTs were effective for improving LTPA behavior and its antecedents. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using five databases. Study characteristics were extracted from included articles and intervention descriptions were coded using the BCT Taxonomy V.1. Effectiveness of BCTs and the level of behavior change theory use in the design of interventions were examined within studies using an experimental design. Twenty-six unique studies were included, 14 of which had an experimental design. The most commonly used BCTs across the 26 studies related to the core components of self-management (i.e., education, training/rehearsal of psychological strategies, and social support). Examination of the 14 experimental studies revealed that the use of BCTs corresponding to core self-management components, and the use of theories and/or constructs of behavior change in the design of interventions, were related to significant improvements and maintenance of LTPA outcomes, regardless of the number of BCTs used. This review offers a glimpse into the mechanisms by which self-management interventions lead to behavior change; however, more research is needed to explore and evaluate other elements (e.g., dose, mode of delivery, provider, and tailoring) that comprise effective LTPA self-management interventions for persons with SCI.Acknowledgments: Lindsay Sleeth, Stephanie Marrocco and Dalton Wolfe (SCIRE Research Team) were supported by the Craig H. Neilsen Foundation [grant number 290502] and the Rick Hansen Institute [grant number 2015-21]. Stephanie Flood is supported by a SSHRC Canada Graduate Scholarship-Master's Program.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".