Understanding low adherence to an exercise program for adolescents with obesity: the HEARTY trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Introduction Despite efforts to improve adherence to physical activity interventions in youth with obesity, low adherence and attrition remain areas of great concern. Objective The study was designed to determine which physiological and/or psychological factors predicted low adherence in adolescents with obesity enrolled in a 6‐month exercise intervention study aimed to improve body composition. Methods Three hundred four adolescents with obesity aged 14–18 years who volunteered for the HEARTY (Healthy Eating Aerobic and Resistance Training in Youth) randomized controlled trial completed physiological (body mass index, waist circumference, per cent body fat, resting metabolic rate and aerobic fitness) and psychological (body image, mood, self‐esteem and self‐efficacy) measures. Results One hundred forty‐one out of 228 (62%) randomized to exercise groups had low adherence (completed <70% of the prescribed four exercise sessions per week) to the intervention protocol. Logistic regression revealed that there were no baseline demographic or physiological variables that predicted low adherence in the participants. Appearance concern (a subscale of body image) (odds ratio [OR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01, 2.1, P = 0.04), depressive mood (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.23, P = 0.03) and confused mood (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.27, P = 0.003) (two subscales of mood) were significant predictors of low adherence. Conclusions Adolescents with obesity who had higher appearance concerns and depressive and confused moods were less likely to adhere to exercise. Body image and mood should be screened to identify adolescents who may be at high risk of poor adherence and who may need concurrent or treatment support to address these psychological issues to derive maximal health benefits from an exercise programme.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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, 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".