MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937723266 · doi:10.1080/21642850.2019.1600407

A feasibility randomized trial of an identity-based physical activity intervention among university students

2019· article· en· W2937723266 on OpenAlexafffund
Cassandra Husband, Joan Wharf-Higgins, Ryan E. Rhodes

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology and Behavioral Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyIdentity (music)PsychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Exercise identity has considerable evidence as a correlate of physical activity (PA), but almost no research has focused on intervention. Theory suggests identity may be formed through indirect means of motivated behaviour change over time or through direct targeting of identity related antecedents. Using a parallel, single blind design, the purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility (recruitment, retention, and satisfaction) of these two types of interventions (indirect, direct) to increase exercise identity and subsequent PA. METHODS: Participants between the ages of 18-25 who were not meeting PA guidelines were recruited from the University of Victoria, and randomized at a 1:1 ratio to an indirect or direct intervention group. The indirect intervention group received information on the benefits of PA and behaviour change techniques such as planning. The direct intervention group received the same information, with the addition of identity-specific information. Intervention materials were delivered bi-weekly for 6 weeks. Feasibility and participant satisfaction at the study end-point were assessed using mixed methods, and both PA change and exercise identity change were assessed via self-report. RESULTS: = 0.43) across six weeks. DISCUSSION: High feasibility ratings, both through retention, and survey and interview data show that the study could be extended to a full-scale RCT. Modifications to recruitment including oversampling to account for low recruitment rates may be useful. No adverse events were reported.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Psychology and Behavioral MedicineSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207