ArticleHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2024
An analysis of physical activity coping plans: mapping barriers and coping strategies based on user ratings.
Article in Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and evaluation of the COntextualised and Personalised Physical activity and Exercise Recommendations (COPPER) Ontology.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025Article
- Health anxiety and physical activity among young and middle-aged employees: the role of self-compassion and coping strategies.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Personalising recommendations for physical activity coping plans can help bridging the physical activity intention-behaviour gap. Data-driven 'black-box' approaches result in recommendations that prove difficult to explain, and may have undesired consequences. This study aimed to explicitly link barriers and coping strategies using end-user input. Method: 152 participants (85 female) took part in an online task. Participants were asked to judge the relevance of coping strategies for barriers to physical activity, and under which circumstances coping strategies were relevant for a given barrier. Data was aggregated and heat maps were produced. Necessary conditions for the relevance of each combination were coded and their frequencies were reported. Results: Relevance of 1570 combinations of barriers and coping strategies were assessed, with 2 combinations rated 'always relevant' by all participants, and 37 combinations rated as 'always relevant' by no participants. Barriers differ strongly in how many coping strategies are relevant for them, and coping strategies differ strongly in how many barriers they are relevant for. Resulting aggregates concerning the average rating as 'never relevant', 'always relevant' and 'relevant under certain conditions' are shared for each barrier coping strategy combination, as are the conditions associated with different barriers and coping strategies. Discussion: This study introduces a novel method to create rules for recommendations using input from stakeholders. The datasets created throughout this research are available for re-use in future research, as well as for clinical practice and (digital) intervention development. This data can be used as a base for explainable personalised recommendations for physical activity coping plans.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.