Integrating needs-supportive delivery into a laboratory-based randomised controlled trial for adolescent girls with overweight and obesity: Theoretical underpinning and 12-week psychological outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When designing efficacy trials, researchers have a responsibility to "do no harm" and to "do good". Given the psychological vulnerability of adolescent girls with overweight and obesity, it is important to consider the implications of participating in weight-related research studies. We investigated psychological outcomes from a 12-week laboratory-based randomised controlled trial aimed at improving body composition and bone health in adolescent girls with overweight and obesity. Sixty-three participants were randomised to three groups (Recommended dairy diet plus exercise (RDa, n = 24); Low dairy diet plus exercise (LDa, n = 25); no-intervention control (n = 14)). Self-Determination Theory-informed strategies were applied in both intervention groups to foster motivation and enhance psychological wellbeing. Motivation, perceived competence and self-perceptions were measured at 0 and 12 weeks. Fifty-four participants (24 RDa, 23 LDa, 7 Control) provided complete psychological data. There were no between group differences in 0- to 12-week change in motivation, perceived competence or global self-worth. Both intervention groups showed significant improvements in physical self-worth (p = 0.001), body satisfaction (p = 0.002) and perceived physical conditioning (p = 0.002), compared with the control group. A theory-informed, laboratory-based diet and exercise intervention produced favourable psychological outcomes for adolescent girls with overweight and obesity.
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 | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".