MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051896392 · doi:10.1001/archfami.9.4.339

An Office-Based Instrument for Exercise Counseling and Prescription in Primary Care: The Step Test Exercise Prescription (STEP)

2000· article· en· W2051896392 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert J. Petrella

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Family Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteSt Joseph's Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionFamily medicineTest (biology)Exercise prescriptionPrimary careDemographicsPhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations77
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Family MedicineSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207