Developing physical activity interventions for adults with spinal cord injury. Part 2: Motivational counseling and peer-mediated interventions for people intending to be active.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The majority of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) do not engage in sufficient leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) to attain fitness benefits; however, many have good intentions to be active. This paper describes two pilot interventions targeting people with SCI who are insufficiently active but intend to be active (i.e., "intenders"). METHOD: Study 1 examined the effects of a single, telephone-based counseling session on self-regulatory efficacy, intentions, and action plans for LTPA among seven men and women with paraplegia or tetraplegia. Study 2 examined the effects of a home-based strength-training session, delivered by a peer and a fitness trainer, on strength-training task self-efficacy, intentions, action plans, and behavior. Participants were 11 men and women with paraplegia. RESULTS: The counseling session (Study 1) yielded medium- to large-sized increases in participants' confidence to set LTPA goals and intentions to be active. The home visit (Study 2) produced medium- to large-sized increases in task self-efficacy, barrier self-efficacy, intentions, action planning, and strength-training behavior from baseline to 4 weeks after the visit. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Study 1 findings provide preliminary evidence that a single counseling session can impact key determinants of LTPA among intenders with SCI. Study 2 findings demonstrate the potential utility of a peer-mediated, home-based strength training session for positively influencing social cognitions and strength-training behavior. Together, these studies provide evidence and resources for intervention strategies to promote LTPA among intenders with SCI, a population for whom LTPA interventions and resources are scarcely available.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".