Impact of integrating a physical activity counsellor into the primary health care team: physical activity and health outcomes of the Physical Activity Counselling randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper was to report the physical activity and health outcomes results from the Physical Activity Counselling (PAC) trial. Patients (n = 120, mean age 47.3 ± 11.1 years, 69.2% female) who reported less than 150 min of physical activity per week were recruited from a large community-based Canadian primary care practice. After receiving brief physical activity counselling from their provider, they were randomized to receive 6 additional patient-centered counselling sessions over 3 months from a physical activity counsellor (intensive-counselling group; n = 61), or no further intervention (brief-counselling group; n = 59). Physical activity (self-reported and accelerometer) was measured every 6 weeks up to 25 weeks (12 weeks postintervention). Quality of life was also assessed, and physical and metabolic outcomes were evaluated in a randomly selected subset of patients (33%). In the intent-to-treat analyses of covariance, the intensive-counselling group self-reported significantly higher levels of physical activity at 6 weeks (p = 0.009) and 13 weeks (p = 0.01). There were no differences in self-reported physical activity between the groups after the intervention in the follow-up period, nor was there any increase in accelerometer-measured physical activity. Finally, the intensive-counselling patients showed greater decreases in percent body fat and total fat mass from 13 weeks to 25 weeks. Results for physical activity depended on the method used, with positive short-term results with self-report and no effects with the accelerometers. Between-group differences were found for body composition in that the intensive-counselling patients decreased more. A multisite randomized controlled trial with a longer intensive intervention and follow-up is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".