MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

EXERCISE PRESCRIPTION AND COUNSELING BY PHYSICIANS TO THEIR OLDER PATIENTS

2002· article· en· W2044366714 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert J. Petrella, C N. Lattanzio

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranstheoretical modelMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessPhysical therapyMedical prescriptionExercise prescriptionIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialPhysical activityGerontologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We report the baseline characteristics of a primary care physical activity intervention among family physicians and their older patients. METHODS: STEP is a 12-month, stratified, clustered randomized clinical trial, with 305 older adults aged 55 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 counselling program based on the STEP model and the transtheoretical model of behaviour change. Control physicians prescribed exercise as usual care. Primary outcome measure is cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max). Secondary outcomes: energy expenditure in physical activity (kcal/day), stage of change and exercise benefits and barriers. All patients had office assessments at baseline with follow up at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, and monthly staging telephone calls (8). RESULTS: The study screened 346 patients and had an enrollment rate of 91%. Baseline data yielded 127 men and 178 women with a mean age of 63.7 ± 7.6 years. For this age group, the mean maximal oxygen consumption was 30.97 ± 7.88 ml.kg−1.min−1 and the mean energy expended was 2650.68 ± 567.55 kcal/day. Almost half of the patients were classified as maintenance stage, 10.8% were classified as being in action, 16.7% preparation, whereas 25% were either in contemplation or precontemplation stage. Perceived barriers to exercise were high (42.69 ± 5.59; range 14–56) with low perception of benefits of exercise (53.74 ± 11.67; range 29–116). CONCLUSION: This group of subjects were primarily in maintenance and showed higher levels of fitness but lower activity level. We will determine whether an exercise prescription and counselling model that is tailored to the patient characteristics (fitness and stage of change) will enable family physicians to increase fitness, physical activity and perceived benefit among these patients. Supported by CIHR and Pfizer Canada Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→