Social support in physical activity interventions for adults: An overview of reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within adult physical activity (PA) interventions, enhancing social support can foster behaviour change (initiation and maintenance), reduce social isolation, build connections with similar others, and foster a sense of belonging and connectedness. Fitness professionals and PA participants are critical support providers and/or facilitators within interventions (i.e., group PA; one-on-one PA with a fitness professional). Yet there is little guidance available regarding effective supportive behaviours and strategies for fitness professionals and participants. There is a need to identify and synthesize available evidence reporting on behaviours and strategies to support adults in PA interventions. Thus, an overview of reviews was conducted to synthesize this literature. Two independent reviewers screened citations and identified 19 studies for inclusion. Data were extracted and synthesized, and 11 categories related to supportive behaviours and strategies were identified: feeling welcomed (e.g., speaking to new participants), making PA fun (e.g., framing the exercise as enjoyable), supporting participants PA through instruction (e.g., individualized coaching on technique), informational support (e.g., sharing tips to remain active), tangible support (e.g., giving rides to class), autonomy support (e.g., providing choices in class), emotional support (e.g., showing concern for participants’ feelings), modelling PA (e.g., seeing similar others participate in PA), accountability/commitment (e.g., following up with participants who miss class), encouragement (e.g., vocalizing praise, reinforcement), and creating opportunities to make friends (e.g., allowing time to socialize in class). These findings collectively highlight numerous supportive behaviours and strategies which will be used to develop evidence-informed resources for fitness professionals working with various adult populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".