EXERCISE PRESCRIPTION AND COUNSELING BY PHYSICIANS (STEP STUDY)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE We report the 6 month data of a primary care physical activity intervention among family physicians and their older patients. METHODS Step Test Exercise Prescription (STEP) is a 24-month, stratified, clustered randomized clinical trial, with 360 older adults aged 50 to 85 years from 37 family practices (21 intervention and 16 control) in four regions of Canada. Intervention physicians were trained to deliver an exercise prescription and counseling program based on the STEP model and the transtheoretical model of behaviour change. Control physicians prescribed exercise as usual care. Primary outcome measures were predicted cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max) and energy expenditure (EE, 7-day PAR). All patients will have office assessments at baseline with follow-up at 3, 6, 9, 12, 24 months, and monthly staging telephone calls. RESULTS Participants (intervention, n=193; control, n=167) were healthy community dwelling older men (42.8\%) and women (57.2\%) with a mean age of 64.4 ± 7.2 years. For this age group, the mean VO2max significantly increased from baseline to 6 months (31.56 ± 7.97 and 34.29 ± 8.48 ml.kg−1.min−1 respectively, p = .001). In both groups, VO2max significantly increased (p < .001) for the intervention (+2.88 ± 4.22 ml.kg−1.min−1) and control (+2.56 ± 5.20 ml.kg−1.min−1) from baseline to 6 months, however there was no difference between groups. Both men and women improved (p = .001) their physical fitness (2.41 ± 5.06 and 2.99 ± 4.38 ml.kg−1.min−1 respectively). The mean EE significantly increased from baseline to 6 months (2649 ± 569 and 2689 ± 598 kcal/day respectively, p = .001). Change in EE was significantly different between intervention and control groups (+61 ± 176 and +18 ± 148 kcal/day respectively, p = .022). EE was not significantly different between men and women. CONCLUSION The 6 month tailored exercise prescription and counseling intervention was effective in promoting increased physical fitness and activity in men and women, but was not significantly different than the usual care control. Supported by CIHR.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".