MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2279811078 · doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2866-7

Evaluating the Heart Wise Exercise™ program: a model for safe community exercise programming

2016· article· en· W2279811078 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer L. Reed, Jennifer Harris, Liz Midence, Elizabeth B. Yee, Sherry L. Grace

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkToronto Rehabilitation InstituteYork UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Trillium Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyChecklistAerobic exerciseBiostatisticsPublic healthNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Greater availability of community exercise facilities is recommended to promote physical activity in the large number of people with chronic disease. The Heart Wise Exercise (HWE) program encourages existing community-based exercise facilities to build capacity to serve such patients, by working with interested facilities to ensure they meet safety criteria, and educating exercise leaders. METHODS: Using a piloted checklist, 45 HWE programs were audited for the six HWE criteria (outlined below) in the greater Ottawa and Toronto areas of Ontario, Canada. A survey was also administered to a convenience sample of HWE program participants (N = 127). RESULTS: Criteria 1: 71% of leaders encouraged daily aerobic exercise; participants reported engaging in 194 min/week of aerobic exercise. Criteria 2: 100% of programs incorporated a warm-up and cool-down, and 84% encouraged self-monitoring during class. Criteria 3: 98% of programs offered options for participants to exercise at their appropriate intensity. Criteria 4: HWE participants reported having chronic conditions including arthritis (41%), osteoporosis (26%) diabetes (8%), heart disease (6%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (6%). Criteria 5: 93% of instructors offered health screening for participants. Criteria 6: 100% of sites had automated external defibrillators, and 90% of the instructors were aware of the documented emergency plan. The exercise leaders reported being 'knowledgeable/comfortable/confident' in providing exercise guidance to, and having clients with chronic health conditions; directing clients to other services; offering exercise intensity options; helping clients listen to their bodies; and, encouraging clients to provide information regarding their health. The participants reported being, on average, 'somewhat happy' to 'very happy' with HWE locations; program dates and times; leaders' knowledge of disease and exercise; exercise intensity; cost; and, social aspect. CONCLUSIONS: HWE programs are safe and appropriate for persons with varying chronic health conditions, and participants are satisfied with and will likely continue attending their HWE classes. Future efforts should be directed at increasing awareness of HWE programs among referring healthcare professionals and participants at risk of chronic conditions. The HWE training program should emphasize that HWE leaders regularly encourage self-monitoring and daily aerobic exercise, which is well-known to reduce the burden of many chronic diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.343
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.131 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207