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 OpenAlex
Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos, Jennifer R. Tomasone, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
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