Fostering physical activity motivation at substance use disorder treatment facilities: A qualitative study grounded in self-determination theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Studies have found inconclusive results for the effects of physical activity (PA) interventions on substance use, mental health, and physiological health of people experiencing substance use disorders (SUDs). To improve PA interventions for individuals with SUDs, a deeper understanding of the underlying motivational processes is imperative. This study employs self-determination theory as a framework to explore factors impacting PA motivation in SUD treatment contexts. Methods: A qualitative research design utilising semi-structured interviews explored the experiences and perspectives of five people with lived or living experience of SUD treatment and five stakeholders within SUD treatment facilities across Western Australia. A reflexive thematic analysis was employed for the data analysis. Results: Five themes were developed: (i) Belonging to a Community, describing the sense of community fostered by group PA (ii) Mind, Body, and Soul, outlining the impact of PA on mental and physical well-being and sense of self; (iii) Physical Activity and Recovery Integration, describing how structured PA supports individuals transitioning from SUD treatment to community environments, (iv) Goals and Rewards, illustrating how setting goals fosters a sense of accomplishment, and (v) Safe Space, describing the importance of creating safe environments for PA exploration. Conclusion: Insights gained from this study could be used to design PA interventions that address individuals’ basic psychological needs and promote more autonomous motivation while fostering peer connections, PA knowledge, and independence. These implementations may lead to greater PA engagement and adherence.
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".