The Efficacy of Stage-Matched and Standard Public Health Materials for Promoting Physical Activity in the Workplace: The Physical Activity Workplace Study (PAWS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of stage-matched and standard print materials for physical activity (PA) change. DESIGN: Participants were randomized into (1) a stage-matched intervention group (n = 165), (2) a standard intervention group (n = 176), or (3) a no-contact control group (n = 166). The stage-matched and standard intervention groups both received materials at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Assessments of all three groups were conducted at baseline, 6, and 12 months. SETTING: Canadian worksites. SUBJECTS: Employees (N = 507). INTERVENTIONS: Five motivationally targeted booklets were developed for the stage-matched group. The standard group received Canada's Physical Activity Guide and handbook. MEASURES: The main dependent variable was PA, expressed as metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes and measured using the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire. Demographic characteristics and stages of change for PA were also assessed. RESULTS: At 12 months mean weekly MET minutes for combined moderate and vigorous activity increased from baseline by 223, 67, and 78 for the stage-matched, standard, and control groups, respectively; however, differences were not significant (p > .05). Women in the stage-matched group over the 12-month period significantly increased their activity by 327 weekly MET minutes whereas the standard and control groups declined their activity (F = 3.01, p < .05). CONCLUSION: PA stage-matched materials delivered in the workplace are efficacious for women but not men. Future interventions should explore the use of these intervention materials in conjunction with multilevel strategies, and particular attention should be paid to possible gender differences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".