The Mediating Role of Perceived Social Support Between Physical Activity Habit Strength and Depressive Symptoms in People Seeking to Decrease Their Cardiovascular Risk: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity treatment has been advocated for the prevention and rehabilitation of patients at risk of cardiovascular diseases and depressive symptoms. How physical activity is related to depressive symptoms is widely discussed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this internet-based study was to investigate the role of perceived social support in the relationship between physical activity habit strength and depressive symptoms. METHODS: In total, 790 participants (mean 50.9 years, SD 12.2, range 20-84 years) who were interested in reducing their cardiovascular risk were recruited in Germany and the Netherlands. Data collection was conducted via an internet-based questionnaire addressing physical activity habit strength, depressive symptoms, and perceived social support. Cross-sectional data analysis was done with SPSS version 24 using the Macro PROCESS version 2 16.3 by Hayes with bootstrapping (10,000 samples), providing 95% CIs. RESULTS: Physical activity habit strength was negatively related to depressive symptoms (r=-.13, P=.006), but this interrelation disappeared when controlling for perceived social support (beta=-.14, SE 0.09, P=.11). However, there was an indirect relationship between physical activity habit strength and depressive symptoms, which was mediated via perceived social support (beta=-.13; SE 0.04, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.06). The negative relationship between physical activity habit strength and depressive symptoms was fully mediated by perceived social support. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that physical activity treatment in people interested in reducing their cardiovascular risk should also embed social support to target depressive symptoms. Internet-based interventions and electronic health may provide a good option for doing so. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01909349; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01909349 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73Y9RfdiY).
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".