Physical activity motives, barriers, and preferences in people with obesity: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of physical activity (PA) are well known, physical inactivity is highly prevalent among people with obesity. The objective of this systematic review was to i) appraise knowledge on PA motives, barriers, and preferences in individuals with obesity, and ii) quantify the most frequently reported PA motives, barriers and preferences in this population. METHODS: Six databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, Psyarticle, SportDiscus, Web of science and Proquest) were searched by independent reviewers to identify relevant quantitative or qualitative articles reporting PA motives, barriers or preferences in adults with body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 (last searched in June 2020). Risk of bias for each study was assessed by two independent reviewers with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: From 5,899 papers identified, a total of 27 studies, 14 quantitative, 10 qualitative and 3 mixed studies were included. About 30% of studies have a MMAT score below 50% (k = 8). The three most reported PA motives in people with obesity were weight management, energy/physical fitness, and social support. The three most common PA barriers were lack of self-discipline/motivation, pain or physical discomfort, and lack of time. Based on the only 4 studies available, walking seems to be the preferred mode of PA in people with obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Weight management, lack of motivation and pain are key PA motives and barriers in people with obesity, and should be addressed in future interventions to facilitate PA initiation and maintenance. Further research is needed to investigate the PA preferences of people with 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 | 0.016 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".