Exploring gender differences in physical activity and related barriers in children and adults living with type 1 diabetes: A narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In the general population, individuals who self-identify as girls and women are typically less active and report more barriers to physical activity (PA), often influenced by gender stereotypes and sociocultural norms. These barriers may be accentuated in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D), who face additional diabetes-related barriers to engaging in PA. METHODS: In this narrative review, electronic databases were searched using keywords related to PA barriers and T1D. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened to select articles analysing gender effects or reporting specific data on girls/women with T1D versus peers without diabetes. RESULTS: While many studies have examined gender effects on PA levels in T1D (consistently reporting lower overall and vigorous-intensity PA in girls/women), few have explored gender effects on barriers to PA. Among the ten barrier-related studies, some (but not all) suggest that girls/women report higher overall PA barrier scores and diabetes-related concerns, such as fear of hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia or losing control over diabetes management, compared with boys/men. The interactions between PA barriers and PA levels appear complex and may vary between adults and children. However, these interactions remain understudied from a gender perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of glycaemic challenges related to PA appears to be a greater barrier for girls/women with T1D versus boys/men. However, further research is needed to examine universal barriers to PA. Interactions between diabetes-related or universal barriers with lower habitual PA also require exploration as a first step towards developing appropriate PA promotion initiatives, whether focused on glycaemic management education or social factors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".