Motivation to Move: Examining motivational regulations in a randomized pilot trial comparing physical activity prescription and supportive coaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the proven benefits of regular physical activity (PA), engagement rates in Canada remain low. Prescription to Get Active (RxTGA) aims to increase participation and enhance public health by promoting PA prescriptions written by healthcare providers. Because enrollment declined through the pandemic, the “Motivation to Move” study was created to assess the impact of RxTGA versus RxTGA plus a supportive coaching complement on psychological indices among adults over a 12-week intervention with a 6-month follow-up. All participants engaged with their prescriptions independently; treatment group participants received nine 30–45-minute telecommunication-based sessions with a trained activity coach. Motivational regulation data ascribed from self-determination theory were collected at baseline, 6-weeks, 12-weeks, and 3- and 6-months post-intervention, and analyzed using repeated measures ANOVAs. Overall, 269 individuals expressed interest; 77 were randomized. Forty-two (RxTGA-only = 18; RxTGA plus coaching = 24) completed the program and follow-up assessments. Results revealed that introjected regulation was significantly lower at the 6-month follow-up compared to 6-weeks for all participants. Identified and integrated regulation were significantly higher across time for the coaching group compared to the RxTGA-only group. Intrinsic regulation was significantly higher at all timepoints for the coaching group compared to baseline. In sum, activity coaching participants experienced greater improvements in the more autonomous regulations, an important finding since internalized forms of motivation are associated with greater PA adoption, engagement, and maintenance. Results are discussed in relation to the self-determination continuum, physical activity prescription, and the activity coaching model.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".