Association between outdoor physical activity and positive mental health in adolescence: estimating the mediation effect of autonomy, competence and relatedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both nature and physical activity practice have been identified as positive contributors to mental health and well-being. Engaging in outdoor physical activity (OPA) likely combines these benefits. However, the mechanisms through which these associations operate remain unknown. Since OPA can promote the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness and basic psychological needs are associated with positive mental health, they could represent a mediator in the OPA-positive mental health association. The aims of this study are to 1) estimate the association between OPA and positive mental health in adolescents and 2) examine whether satisfaction of autonomy, competence and relatedness mediate this relationship. METHODS: Data from the MATCH longitudinal study were used to examine these objectives in young (14–15 years), middle-age (15–16 years) and older (16–17 years) adolescents. OPA and satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness were self-reported three times per year. Positive mental health was self-reported once per year. Linear and logistic regression models (objective 1) and mediation analyses based on counterfactual definitions of natural direct (NDE) and natural indirect (NIE) effects (objective 2) were performed, adjusting for age, gender, puberty stage, and neighborhood income. RESULTS: No association was found between OPA frequency and positive mental health in young adolescents (OR [95% CI] = 1.10 [0.69, 1.75]); however, a positive association is observed in middle-age (OR [95% CI] = 1.99 [1.11, 3.57]) and older (OR [95% CI] = 3.40 [1.25, 10.09]) adolescents. Mediation analyses suggest that only relatedness may mediate the OPA-positive mental health association among middle-age adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that OPA may relate differently to positive mental health across adolescence and that underpinning mechanisms need to be further investigated.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".