Barriers and facilitators of physical activity participation in adults living with type 1 diabetes: a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To identify and map barriers and facilitators of physical activity (PA) in adults living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in any care setting or environment. A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines to address the aim of this review. Exclusion/inclusion criteria were determined a priori. Articles captured in the search were subject to title and abstract screening before full-text articles were assessed for eligibility against the exclusion/inclusion criteria. Included articles underwent critical appraisal before being charted, mapped, and discussed. Forty-six articles were included in the final synthesis. Most commonly, articles reported cross-sectional survey studies (46%), then qualitative designs (17%), and opinion or text (17%). Experimental studies accounted for 13% of included articles. Hypoglycaemia/fear of hypoglycaemia was the most commonly reported barrier and patient education the most commonly discussed facilitator. Quality appraisal revealed methodological issues among included articles. Higher quality research with theoretically sound behaviour-change interventions combined with targeted patient education is needed to address hypoglycaemia/fear of hypoglycaemia as a barrier to PA. Novelty: Hypoglycaemia and fear of hypoglycaemia were the most commonly reported barriers to PA in adults with T1D. Powered randomised controlled trials are required to establish efficacy of behaviour change interventions targeting these barriers to PA.
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 | 0.028 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".