Theory of Planned Behavior in Predicting Physical Activity among Portuguese Older Adults with Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the explanatory value of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to predict the intentions of physical activity in older adults with lower-extremity osteoarthritis. This is a cross-sectional study with a sample of 41 older adults (50+ years) with lower-extremity osteoarthritis. The instruments used were as follows: International Physical Activity Questionnaire, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and TPB exercise scale. The Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index scores were calculated and used in the statistical analysis.Results revealed that attitudes and perceived behavioral control were statistically significant predictors of physical activity intentions. Attitudes and perceived behavioral control accounted for 46% of the variance in physical activity intentions. Subjective norms did not evidence a significant effect. Knowledge of the predictors of physical activity intentions can guide researchers and clinicians in the development of interventions that are tailored to the personal characteristics and needs of older adults with chronic diseases.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".