MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2051896392 · doi:10.1001/archfami.9.4.339

An Office-Based Instrument for Exercise Counseling and Prescription in Primary Care: The Step Test Exercise Prescription (STEP)

2000· article· en· W2051896392 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Robert J. Petrella

Notice bibliographique

RevueArchives of Family Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePhysical Activity and Health
Établissements canadiensLawson Health Research InstituteSt Joseph's Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMedical prescriptionFamily medicineTest (biology)Exercise prescriptionPrimary careDemographicsPhysical therapyNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Available evidence suggests that despite physicians' positive attitudes toward exercise as an important part of promoting a healthy lifestyle, few physicians actually prescribe exercise for their patients. One barrier may be lack of a standard office instrument. OBJECTIVES: To determine the (1) exercise counseling habits among a large group of Canadian family physicians and (2) acceptance and utilization of an exercise counseling instrument geared to primary care practice. DESIGN: Randomized control trial. SETTING: Primary care practice. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians (N = 400) from 3 regions of Canada, representing both rural and urban practice (ratio of 1:3). Patients (10 per practice) were healthy community dwellers older than 65 years obtained as a convenience sample in their family practice. INTERVENTIONS: In phase 1, 400 physicians listed as being in general or family practice by their provincial registries were randomly selected from a larger group listed by these registries and contacted by telephone. A total of 362 completed a 10-minute questionnaire that detailed practice demographics, preventive practice, and exercise counseling habits. In phase 2, 293 agreed to further participate in the administration of an exercise prescription randomly assigned to them by the study team. Two methods of exercise prescription were compared: counseling using the American College of Sports Medicine guidelines (control) and counseling using guidelines and an office-based step test (Step Test Exercise Prescription [STEP]) to determine fitness level and prescribe an exercise training heart rate. Physicians were asked to deliver their assigned exercise prescription to a convenience sample of the next 10 healthy patients older than 65 years who presented to the office. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were physician exercise counseling confidence and knowledge before and after the study. Secondary outcomes included details of the exercise counseling sessions (e.g., time required). RESULTS: In phase 1, more than 90% of the 362 physicians claimed to practice preventive health counseling, and 70% claimed to include exercise counseling. Only 67.4% felt confident regarding their exercise prescribing, and most (93.8%) were interested in improving their exercise prescribing skills. The leading barriers to exercise prescription were described in order as inadequate time, lack of necessary skills and tools, and lack of reimbursement. In phase 2, no difference in physician profile, patient profile, or indications for exercise counseling were observed between control (n = 145) and STEP (n = 148) groups. STEP was significantly longer (16.4 vs 12.9 min; P = .001) to administer; however, improvement in physician confidence (P = .01) and knowledge (P = .009) were significantly greater compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Most family physicians practiced preventive exercise counseling but reported lack of time and skills as barriers to this practice. Physicians randomized to the STEP group took longer to deliver exercise advice but felt more confident and knowledgeable compared with controls.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,897
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,531

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,033
Tête enseignante GPT0,288
Écart entre enseignants0,255 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations77
Publié2000
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArchives of Family MedicineMême sujetPhysical Activity and HealthTravaux en français237 207