Effects of The Coach Approach intervention on psychosocial predictors of exercise and subsequent changes in glucose metabolism, cardiorespiratory functioning, and body composition: a pilot project of the interior health of British Columbia and a local YMCA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Exercise typically improves overall health and reduces health risks; however, completion of even the minimum recommended amount of daily exercise is rare for most people. When recommended by medical professionals, patients may benefit from convenient, evidence-based, exercise-support processes. The aim of this study was to assess the preliminary effects of such an intervention when administered jointly by the Interior Health Authority of British Columbia and a local YMCA. Design: Participants were overweight or obese adult patients (N=92; Mean age =59 years) who suffered from cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or renal disease and were referred by medical professionals. The Coach Approach - a standardized 6-month, cognitive-behavioral based protocol that is designed to provide support for maintained exercise - was individually administered though six 30-minute sessions at a variety of community health locations. Results: Significant within-group improvements in the psychosocial measures of self-regulatory skill usage, exercise self-efficacy, mood, and physical self-concept were observed. Also, improvements in exercise volume and measures of glucose metabolism, cardiovascular functioning, and body composition were found. Multiple regression analysis indicated that changes in self-regulation, self-efficacy, and mood accounted for a significant portion of the variance (R 2 =0.24) in the change in volume of exercise. Significant linear bivariate relationships were observed between an increase in exercise volume and improvements in hemoglobin A1c, fasting glucose, and body mass index. Conclusion: These findings suggest that increases in exercise volume are associated with proposed psychosocial pathways. Based on the associated reductions in health risks, collaborations between public health agencies and community organizations could be used to address the need for evidence-based support of patients’ exercise behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".