Effect of Special Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention on Commitment to Exercise and Mental Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although most people are aware of the advantages of physical exercise, they have failed to commit to it. This forms justification for this intervention.OBJECTIVES: In this study, the effect of special cognitive-behavioral intervention on commitment to exercise and mental health in adults was investigated by controlling the role of the commitment-to-exercise variable.METHODS: The statistical population for this study comprised 635 employees with over 10 years’ professional experience: 235 were selected from amongst these. Thereafter, 80 employees were randomly assigned to two groups—experimental and control—of 40 each. The experimental group was trained for four months in fourteen sessions for using cognitive-behavioral therapy. To collect data, a commitment-to-exercise and mental health questionnaire was used.RESULTS: When the effect of the pretest variable on the dependent variable was adjusted, it was observed that there is a significant difference (p < 0.01) between the means of the scores for commitment and mental health. The covariance test revealed that the difference in the mental health of the experimental and control groups after controlling the effects of commitment to exercise was not significant (p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that commitment to exercises can be improved in individuals by using the aforementioned cognitive-behavioral protocol. Furthermore, using the mediating role of commitment to exercise improves mental health. Therefore, counselors and therapists can use the cognitive-behavioral intervention protocol to improve the commitment to exercise and the mental health of individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".