MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118211667 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.05.018

Get In Motion: An Evaluation of the Reach and Effectiveness of a Physical Activity Telephone Counseling Service for Canadians Living With Spinal Cord Injury

2014· article· en· W2118211667 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos, Jennifer R. Tomasone, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityOntario Neurotrauma FoundationUniversity of TorontoPraxis Spinal Cord Institute
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaOntario Neurotrauma FoundationRick Hansen Institute
KeywordsTelephone counselingMedicineIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyTelephone interviewGerontologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Telephone-based counseling is an efficacious intervention strategy for maintaining leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) intentions and increasing LTPA behavior among adults with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, no research has examined the real-world application of this intervention strategy within the SCI community. OBJECTIVE: To assess the individual-level impact of a previously tested telephone-based counseling intervention among adults within the SCI community by using the first 2 components of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: General community, tertiary care. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults with SCI (n = 65; 57% men; mean [standard deviation], 50.4 ± 12.8 years; mean (standard deviation) years after injury, 14.5 ± 12.7 years) living in Canada who enrolled in a national telephone-based counseling service. Of the 65 clients who enrolled, 53 participated in the effectiveness evaluation component of the Get In Motion service. INTERVENTION: A 6-month, individualized telephone-counseling program with a trained exercise counselor. The program was based on a previously tested intervention that used aspects of the Health Action Process Approach model, with a particular focus on developing and strengthening clients' social cognitions for engaging in self-managed LTPA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: On enrollment, all 65 clients completed demographics and staging questionnaires. The 53 clients who participated in the effectiveness evaluation also completed a validated LTPA intentions item, and the 7-day, self-report LTPA Questionnaire for People with SCI over the telephone at baseline, and 2, 4, and 6 months. RESULTS: In terms of the reach of Get In Motion, a total of 65 clients enrolled in the service between June 2008 and June 2011, and were representative of the larger Canadian SCI population on most measured demographic characteristics. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the service showed that, as hypothesized, intentions for engaging in LTPA remained high throughout enrollment (P = .44), with a trend for more clients engaging in moderate-to-heavy-intensity LTPA at 6 months (52%) versus baseline (35%) (P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone-based counseling is a promising strategy for promoting community-based LTPA behavior among Canadian adults with SCI. Continued evaluation of all 5 Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework components of Get In Motion will help establish the real-world impact of this intervention strategy on community-based LTPA participation within the SCI population.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations59
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207