MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335437359 · doi:10.1037/a0032814

Developing physical activity interventions for adults with spinal cord injury. Part 3: A pilot feasibility study of an intervention to increase self-managed physical activity.

2013· article· en· W2335437359 on OpenAlex
Lawrence R. Brawley, Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRehabilitation Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysical therapyPsychological interventionMedicineIntervention (counseling)Spinal cord injuryRehabilitationSelf-efficacyCognitionPhysical activityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyNursingSpinal cordPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to test the efficacy and feasibility of a group-mediated cognitive-behavioral training (GMCB) intervention for increasing self-managed leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) among people with spinal cord injury (SCI) who are already somewhat active. METHODS: Participants were 13 members of a supervised exercise program for adults with SCI. They took part in a 9-week, evidence-based, theoretically framed, GMCB intervention designed to promote self-regulatory skills and to increase the amount of time spent in self-managed LTPA, outside of the supervised program. Minutes/week of self-managed and supervised LTPA were measured pre- and postintervention, along with measures of social-cognitive variables. Participants' and the interventionist's perceptions of the intervention were also assessed. RESULTS: Participants nearly doubled their total min/week of LTPA, as the result of a significant increase in self-managed LTPA from baseline (M = 42.00 ± 69.57 min/week) to postintervention (M = 197.50 ± 270.86 min/week; p < .05), at no cost to supervised LTPA. Consistent with the GMCB and counseling of self-regulatory skills, self-regulatory efficacy was sustained and action planning increased from pre- (M = 4.63 ± 3.25) to postintervention (M = 6.83 ± 2.40; p = .06). The intervention materials and protocol were perceived as usable by the interventionist and participants and had good intervention fidelity. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with SCI can voluntarily increase their self-managed LTPA after learning and practicing self-regulatory skills. GMCB training interventions are a feasible approach for teaching these skills.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.394 · 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