What happens when key psychological needs are fulfilled? A test of Basic Psychological Needs Theory in breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounded in Basic Psychological Needs Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002), the objective of this study was to examine the mediating role of psychological need fulfillment in the leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) - psychological health relationship using a sample of breast cancer survivors. Adopting a 2–wave longitudinal design, women (N = 144) completed measures of LTPA, psychological need satisfaction experienced during exercise, and markers of well- and ill-being on two occasions separated by 3-months. Based on change score analyses, increased LTPA was associated with increased well-being (r's = .17 to .20) and decreased ill-being (r's = -.06 to -.21). Multiple mediation analyses demonstrated that changes in psychological need fulfillment accounted for the LTPA – well-being relationship (R2adj = .10 to .13), with perceived relatedness serving as a unique mediator. Changes in psychological need fulfillment did not mediate the LTPA – ill-being relationship (R2adj = .02 to .04). With these findings in mind, it is plausible that domain specific psychological need satisfaction is a mechanism for understanding the effects of LTPA on well-being, but not ill-being. The importance of social connectedness in LTPA settings for women's well-being during survivorship is further reinforced.Acknowledgments: Support for this study was provided by the Canadian Institute for Health Research
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".