An Office-Based Instrument for Exercise Counseling and Prescription in Primary Care: The Step Test Exercise Prescription (STEP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Available evidence suggests that despite physicians' positive attitudes toward exercise as an important part of promoting a healthy lifestyle, few physicians actually prescribe exercise for their patients. One barrier may be lack of a standard office instrument. OBJECTIVES: To determine the (1) exercise counseling habits among a large group of Canadian family physicians and (2) acceptance and utilization of an exercise counseling instrument geared to primary care practice. DESIGN: Randomized control trial. SETTING: Primary care practice. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians (N = 400) from 3 regions of Canada, representing both rural and urban practice (ratio of 1:3). Patients (10 per practice) were healthy community dwellers older than 65 years obtained as a convenience sample in their family practice. INTERVENTIONS: In phase 1, 400 physicians listed as being in general or family practice by their provincial registries were randomly selected from a larger group listed by these registries and contacted by telephone. A total of 362 completed a 10-minute questionnaire that detailed practice demographics, preventive practice, and exercise counseling habits. In phase 2, 293 agreed to further participate in the administration of an exercise prescription randomly assigned to them by the study team. Two methods of exercise prescription were compared: counseling using the American College of Sports Medicine guidelines (control) and counseling using guidelines and an office-based step test (Step Test Exercise Prescription [STEP]) to determine fitness level and prescribe an exercise training heart rate. Physicians were asked to deliver their assigned exercise prescription to a convenience sample of the next 10 healthy patients older than 65 years who presented to the office. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were physician exercise counseling confidence and knowledge before and after the study. Secondary outcomes included details of the exercise counseling sessions (e.g., time required). RESULTS: In phase 1, more than 90% of the 362 physicians claimed to practice preventive health counseling, and 70% claimed to include exercise counseling. Only 67.4% felt confident regarding their exercise prescribing, and most (93.8%) were interested in improving their exercise prescribing skills. The leading barriers to exercise prescription were described in order as inadequate time, lack of necessary skills and tools, and lack of reimbursement. In phase 2, no difference in physician profile, patient profile, or indications for exercise counseling were observed between control (n = 145) and STEP (n = 148) groups. STEP was significantly longer (16.4 vs 12.9 min; P = .001) to administer; however, improvement in physician confidence (P = .01) and knowledge (P = .009) were significantly greater compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Most family physicians practiced preventive exercise counseling but reported lack of time and skills as barriers to this practice. Physicians randomized to the STEP group took longer to deliver exercise advice but felt more confident and knowledgeable compared with controls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".