Physical activity among people with an inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review of antecedents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with an inflammatory bowel disease experience challenges that can severely limit their quality of life. Physical activity intervention may be an efficacious method to improve outcomes of inflammatory bowel disease, however many people with an inflammatory bowel disease do not meet physical activity guidelines. The current review aims to synthesize available literature on the factors influencing physical activity in inflammatory bowel disease and identify differences between two main subgroups: Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Six databases were searched for all studies published until 31 August 2023, which collected data regarding physical activity antecedents within a population of persons with an inflammatory bowel disease. The identified antecedents were contextualized within the COM-B model for behaviour change to provide implications for physical activity interventions. The search resulted in 1816 titles and abstracts, of which 30 full-text papers were screened and 14 papers met inclusion criteria for this review. A modified thematic analysis integrating quantitative and qualitative data among 3,985 participants identified disease activity, fatigue, depression, pain and urgency as the most influential antecedents to physical activity. These antecedents were identified as factors affecting physical capability, reflective motivation and physical opportunity within the COM-B model. Persons with Crohn's disease were found to be more susceptible to barriers and engage in less total physical activity than those with ulcerative colitis, however such a small number of studies weakens this finding. Future research should emphasize the collection of longitudinal and experimental data among antecedents of physical activity in a homogenous sample, such that definitive quantitative syntheses can be conducted.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".