Enjoyment rather than affect is related to adolescents' willingness to perform HIIT as an adjunct to mental health treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing support for the implementation of physical activity in the treatment of individuals with serious mental illness. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether affective response or enjoyment were related to adolescents' willingness to perform high-intensity interval training (HIIT) as an adjunct to mental health treatment. These secondary analyses examined data from 28 adolescent psychiatric inpatients who performed a single session of HIIT. Patients completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) before and after the exercise session. Following exercise, patients were asked to provide ratings from 1-10 for their enjoyment of HIIT and willingness to perform HIIT before therapy. Linear regression analyses were used to examine the association between enjoyment/affect responses to HIIT and willingness to perform HIIT before therapy, controlling for age and sex. Enjoyment of HIIT significantly explained willingness to perform HIIT when adjusting for age and sex, F(7,18)=2.6, p=.05, ?p2=.50 (adjusted R2=.28). Neither changes in positive (r=.09, p=.66) or negative affect (r=.28, p=.15) were related to patients' willingness to perform HIIT. Due to a bimodal distribution for participants' enjoyment of HIIT, correlation analyses examined the relationship between enjoyment and willingness to perform HIIT separately for low (? 5, n=12) and high-enjoyers (>5, n=16). There was a significant correlation between enjoyment and willingness to perform HIIT for low-enjoyers (r=.57, p=.05), however, this relationship was not observed for high-enjoyers (r=.03, p=.91). These findings suggest that exercise enjoyment may be an important factor for long-term engagement in HIIT as an adjunct for mental treatment.Acknowledgments: Patients and staff at the psychiatric inpatient unit at CHEO
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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, 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".