MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400217891 · doi:10.1080/08870446.2024.2372658

A web-based physical activity intervention targeting affect regulation: a randomized feasibility trial

2024· article· en· W4400217891 on OpenAlexaff
Stina J. Grant, Sam Liu, Ryan E. Rhodes

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Randomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical activityPsychologyWeb applicationAffect regulationPhysical therapyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyMedicineCognitionWorld Wide WebPsychiatryComputer scienceInternal medicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early career professionals (ECPs) are a critical target for physical activity (PA) promotion. Affect contributes to an established PA intention-behaviour gap and is pertinent among ECPs.Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a web-based intervention and explore the effects on secondary outcomes (moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), emotion regulation, multi-process action control constructs).Methods Adults aged 25-44 who were employed at least part-time in a desk-based job and not meeting PA guidelines (<150 min MVPA) were recruited and randomized into a 6-week online intervention integrating acceptance and commitment principles and affect regulation strategies, or a control group.Results Forty adults were recruited and randomized to the web-based intervention (n = 21) and waitlist control (n = 19). The recruitment rate was 29%, retention was 75%, engagement was 68%, and satisfaction was high in both quantitative and qualitative assessment. Participants allocated to the intervention improved MVPA (ηp2=0.30), emotion regulation (ηp2 =0.49), behavioural regulation (ηp2=0.53), affective attitude (ηp2=0.23), identity (ηp2=0.24), and constructs of mindfulness (ηp2=0.44), and valued living (ηp2=0.20).Conclusions Primary outcomes concerning feasibility were adequate and secondary outcomes improved, suggesting a full-scale randomized controlled trial is feasible with minor modifications. A large-scale study is warranted to establish intervention effectiveness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and HealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207