A Scoping Review of Physical Activity Interventions Among Sexual Minority Adults: A Call to Action for Future Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity (PA) has a variety of well-established benefits for physical and mental health. However, there are PA disparities based on numerous sociodemographic characteristics, including sexual orientation. Mapping of PA interventions tailored to sexual minorities (ie, nonheterosexual) is currently absent from the literature. PURPOSE: The purpose of this scoping review was to summarize the existing interventions focused on promoting PA among sexual minority (SM) adults. METHODS: A search strategy was developed in consultation with a research librarian for PubMed, Web of Science, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The scoping review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Randomized and nonrandomized interventions that focused on increasing PA among SM adults were included. Data on study design, sample demographics, purpose of research, methodology, intervention components, theory-based constructs used, PA measures, and outcomes of the intervention were extracted. RESULTS: Our search yielded 7289 articles, with 26 articles requiring full-text review. Four interventions were identified that focused on increasing PA among SM adults, with 2 focusing on lesbian/bisexual women, 1 focusing on lesbian/gay cancer survivors, and 1 focusing on men who have sex with men. Two of the 4 studies were successful at increasing PA, with varying psychosocial theories (ie, social cognitive theory and theory of reasoned action) and intervention strategies (ie, PA counseling, group meetings, and pedometers). CONCLUSION: Findings of this review demonstrate a clear lack of PA interventions targeting SM adults, limiting the available knowledge required for preventionists, practitioners, and health care professionals to effectively promote PA through behavioral modification among this group.
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 | 0.073 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".