MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects Of A Physician-Based Exercise Counseling Program For Improving Aerobic Fitness In Older Adults

2009· article· en· W2085336928 on OpenAlexaffabout
C N. Lattanzio, Robert J. Petrella, Sheree Shapiro, Tom J. Overend

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineTranstheoretical modelPhysical therapyAerobic exerciseExercise prescriptionMedical prescriptionIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialBlood pressurePhysical fitnessInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unequivocal evidence supports healthy lifestyles for cardiovascular disease prevention. Family physicians are ideally positioned to address this care gap. PURPOSE: To determine the impact of an exercise prescription for older sedentary adults in family practice. METHODS: The Step Test Exercise Prescription (STEP) was a 12 month trial with 360 older adults (50-85 years) from 40 family practices in four regions of Canada. Intervention physicians were trained to deliver a tailored exercise prescription and transtheoretical behavior change counseling program. Control physicians were trained to deliver the exercise prescription alone. Primary outcome measures were cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2max) and energy expenditure (7-day PAR). RESULTS: Participants (intervention, n=193; control, n=167) were healthy community men (48%) and women (52%) with a mean age of 64.9 ±7.1 years. In both groups, VO2max significantly increased (p<0.001) for the intervention (+2.88 ±4.22 ml·kg-1·min-1) and control (+2.56 ±5.20 ml·kg-1·min-1) at 12 months, however there was no difference between groups. Women in the intervention improved their fitness significantly higher than control (+2.99 ±4.38 ml·kg-1·min-1). The intervention group had a 4mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure (0.4 mmHg in the control (p<0.001)). The mean energy expended (EE) significantly increased but was higher in the intervention vs control (69.06 ±169.87 vs -6.96 ±157.06 Kcal·d-1). There were no significant practice setting differences among the primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: STEP exercise and behavioral intervention improved fitness, activity and lowered systolic blood pressure across a range of Canadian practices. Women showed higher levels of fitness than control while men showed similar improvement in both groups. This trial was registered by UWO ethics on September 24, 2003. REB#E7247 entitled: Improving exercise prescription among Canadian family physicians

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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