Physical activity mediates the relationship between outdoor time and mental health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both spending time outdoors and participating in physical activity improve mental health. Given that the outdoor environment provides an ideal location for physical activity, better understanding of the relationships among time spent outdoors, physical activity and positive mental health is needed to help guide interventions. The aim was to examine if physical activity moderates or mediates the relationship between outdoor time and positive mental health. Two-hundred-forty-two participants (15 ± 1 years old, 59% girls) from New Brunswick, Canada were included in the current analysis. Youth self-reported time spent outdoors and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) three times between October 2016 and June 2017. Data on their mental health were collected in October 2017. Values of outdoor time and MVPA were averaged across the three time points to represent the exposure and mediator variables, respectively. Mental health, dichotomized as flourishing/not flourishing, was the outcome in the mediation analysis. An interaction term tested if the mediation effect depended on outdoor time. Analyses were undertaken in 2019 using the mediation package in R. In univariate analyses, both MVPA (p < 0.001) and outdoor time (p = 0.05) were positive predictors of flourishing mental health. In mediation analyses, a small indirect mediation (OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04) and no direct (1.00, 0.98-1.05) effect were noted, suggesting that MVPA mediates the effect of outdoor time on positive mental health. This effect did not vary as a function of outdoor time (interaction: 1.00, 0.99-1.01). Physical activity mediates the relationship between outdoor time and positive mental health. Outdoor time could promote positive mental health among youth through increases in physical activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".