Exercise as medicine—the use of group medical visits to promote physical activity and treat chronic moderate depression: a preliminary 14-week pre–post study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The evidence that regular physical activity can treat depressive disorders is increasingly robust. However, motivating patients with depression to engage in physical activity can be challenging. Interdisciplinary group medical visits (GMVs) with an integrated physical activity component may be a novel means to support patients in becoming more active. METHODS: We conducted a 'pre-post' pilot study within a primary care setting. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with a chronic major depressive disorder or a bipolar 2 disorder (depression; chronic). A psychiatrist and exercise therapist co-led a series of 14 weekly 2 h GMVs. Each group visit combined specific medical advice, physical activity, patient discussions and a targeted educational component. Participants also attended 11 weekly hatha yoga classes. Primary outcome was 'steps' as measured by accelerometer (SenseWear) as well as depression (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-9) and anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder, GAD-7) ratings. RESULTS: 14 of 15 participants (93.3%) completed the 14-week programme. After 3 months postintervention, median depression scales (PHQ-9) decreased 38% from 16 to 10 (p<0.01; IQR pre/post 8/12); and median anxiety scales (GAD-7) decreased 50% from 13 to 6.5 (p<0.05; IQR 8.5/9). Median daily 'steps' increased 71% from 3366 to 5746 (IQR 2610/6237), though this was not significant (p>0.10). CONCLUSIONS: While other studies have examined the efficacy of GMVs in addressing chronic illnesses and the promotion of lifestyle changes, none to our knowledge have embedded physical activity within the actual patient visits. Interdisciplinary GMVs (eg, psychiatrist/exercise professional) may be a means to decrease depression and anxiety ratings within clinical care while improving physical activity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".