Effects of a Tailored Activity Pacing Intervention on Pain and Fatigue for Adults With Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined whether tailored activity pacing intervention was more effective at reducing pain and fatigue than general activity pacing intervention. METHOD: Adults with knee or hip osteoarthritis (N = 32) stratified by age and gender were randomized to receive either tailored or general pacing intervention. Participants wore an accelerometer for 5 days that measured physical activity and allowed for repeated symptom assessment. Physical activity and symptom data were used to tailor activity pacing instruction. Outcomes at 10-week follow-up were pain (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and fatigue (Brief Fatigue Inventory). RESULTS: Compared with general intervention, the tailored group had less fatigue interference (p = .02) and trended toward decreased fatigue severity (p = .09) at 10-wk follow-up. No group differences were found in pain reduction. CONCLUSION: Tailoring instruction on the basis of recent symptoms and physical activity may be a more effective symptom management approach than general instruction given the positive effects on fatigue.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".