Physical Activity, Well‐Being, and the Basic Psychological Needs: Adopting the <scp>SDT</scp> Model of Eudaimonia in a Post‐Cardiac Rehabilitation Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The theoretical conceptualisation of hedonic (HWB; pleasure) and eudaimonic (EWB; meaning) well-being has rarely been examined among cardiac rehabilitation (CR) graduates, including its relationship with moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). First, this study examined the potential bidirectional relationship between MVPA and HWB/EWB. Second, this study tested the self-determination theory (SDT) model of eudaimonia where MVPA was set to predict the model's pathway between eudaimonic motives (seeking meaning), the basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), and both types of well-being. METHODS: Individuals who completed a CR program within the last five years (N = 57) answered well-being and basic psychological needs questionnaires and wore an accelerometer to measure MVPA at baseline and three months later. RESULTS: MVPA predicted changes in both HWB (β = .13) and EWB (β = .13) three months later. Only the EWB-MVPA relationship (β = .16) approached significance, hinting at a bidirectional relationship. The SDT model of eudaimonia was supported and MVPA had a moderate to small relationship with eudaimonic motives. CONCLUSION: This study showed a potential bidirectional relationship between MVPA and EWB and tested the SDT model of eudaimonia with MVPA in post-cardiac rehabilitation. Future interventions could look to simultaneously promote eudaimonia and MVPA among this population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".