Physician Counseling and Longer Term Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While physician counseling has been suggested as a strategy to promote physical activity, there is insufficient evidence to support its effectiveness at present. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of brief physician counseling (modified PACE protocol) and telephone follow-ups on changes in the energy expenditure levels of patients over a 20-month period. Forty-five participants completed physical activity questionnaires at both baseline and 20 months. Following brief physician counseling (modified PACE protocol), patients were randomized into a counseling-only group or an enhanced counseling group that included 3 telephone follow-ups. Energy expenditure significantly increased from baseline (1.5 kcal/kg/d [KKD]) to 20 months (2.2 KKD, P < .05) in both groups. Neither the group nor group-by-time interaction was significant (P > .05). In line with the counseling provided by physicians, participants showed an increase in moderate intensity activities and a decrease in light intensity activities (Ps < .001). These findings provide support for the effectiveness of brief physician counseling. However, the additional telephone support did not appear to enhance the physician counseling.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".