Apathy and Physical Activity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Purpose Patient motivation is essential for the success of their rehabilitation. Apathy, a state of primary motivational deficiency, may therefore hinder physiotherapists’ interventions, such as those aimed at increasing patients’ physical activity. This study aims to examine the relationship between apathy and physical activity and to identify the factors that influence this relationship. Methods Six databases were searched for articles including both a measure of apathy and physical activity. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data from each study. Pearson product-moment correlations were pooled from eligible studies using the generic inverse pooling and random effects method to examine the relationship between apathy and physical activity. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted to examine the differences between studies that included participants with different health conditions and used different types of physical activity outcomes and apathy measures. Meta-regressions were conducted to examine the moderating effects of age and gender. Results Twenty-eight articles were included in the systematic review and 22 studies (n = 12,541 participants) in the main meta-analysis. Results showed a negative correlation between apathy and physical activity (r = -0.13; 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.09; p < 0.0001 based on Pearson’s r values; r = - 0.40; 95% CI: -0.68 to -0.02; p = 0.043 based on Spearman’s rho values). A subgroup meta-analysis revealed that the correlation was statistically significant in patients with Parkinson’s disease and in older adults who were healthy, depressed, fallers, or had mild cognitive impairment. A meta-regression showed an effect of age, with a stronger correlation between apathy and physical activity in older adults compared to younger adults (p = 0.003). Conclusion Our results suggest that higher levels of apathy are associated with lower levels of physical activity and that this negative association is stronger with age. Therefore, apathy may limit exercise therapy efficacy and carry prognostic implications for patients whose condition requires physical activity.
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 | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".