Alberta Diabetes and Physical Activity Trial (ADAPT): A randomized theory-based efficacy trial for adults with type 2 diabetes - rationale, design, recruitment, evaluation, and dissemination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three physical activity (PA) behavioural intervention strategies in a sample of adults with type 2 diabetes. METHOD/DESIGN: Participants (N = 287) were randomly assigned to one of three groups consisting of the following intervention strategies: (1) standard printed PA educational materials provided by the Canadian Diabetes Association [i.e., Group 1/control group)]; (2) standard printed PA educational materials as in Group 1, pedometers, a log book and printed PA information matched to individuals' PA stage of readiness provided every 3 months (i.e., Group 2); and (3) PA telephone counseling protocol matched to PA stage of readiness and tailored to personal characteristics, in addition to the materials provided in Groups 1 and 2 (i.e., Group 3). PA behaviour measured by the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire and related social-cognitive measures were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12 and 18-months (i.e., 6-month follow-up). Clinical (biomarkers) and health-related quality of life assessments were conducted at baseline, 12-months, and 18-months. Linear Mixed Model (LMM) analyses will be used to examine time-dependent changes from baseline across study time points for Groups 2 and 3 relative to Group 1. DISCUSSION: ADAPT will determine whether tailored but low-cost interventions can lead to sustainable increases in PA behaviours. The results may have implications for practitioners in designing and implementing theory-based physical activity promotion programs for this population. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00221234.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".