Mediators of physical activity behaviour change interventions among adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An understanding of physical activity through mediators of behaviour change is important to evaluate the efficacy of interventions. The purpose of this review is to update prior reviews with meta-analysis to evaluate the state of physical activity interventions that include proposed mediators of behaviour change. Literature was identified through searching for five key databases. Studies were eligible if they described a published experimental or quasi-experimental trial in English examining the effect of an intervention on physical activity behaviour and mediators in non-clinical adult populations with the necessary statistical information to be included in the meta-analytic structural equation modelling analysis. Fifty-one articles (49 samples) met the eligibility criteria. Small overall effects were identified for mediation paths a (r = .16; 95% CI = .10 to .22), b (r = .21; 95% CI .16 to .27), and c (r = .24; 95% CI .12 to .35), c′ (r = .05 to .19) and ab (r = .02 to .07) that showed similar findings by theory and construct. The effect sizes seen in physical activity interventions are mediated by our current theories, but the effects are very small and no one construct/theory appears to be a critical driver of the mediated effect compared to any other. Innovation and increased fidelity of interventions is needed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it