MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2343636346 · doi:10.2196/resprot.5454

Testing Activity Monitors’ Effect on Health: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial Among Older Primary Care Patients

2016· article· en· W2343636346 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zakkoyya H. Lewis, Kenneth J. Ottenbacher, Steve Fisher, Kristofer Jennings, Arleen F. Brown, Maria C. Swartz, Elizabeth Lyons

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesAmerican Heart AssociationNational Institutes of HealthCancer Prevention and Research Institute of TexasAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsPedometerIntervention (counseling)MedicineRandomized controlled trialPopulationTest (biology)Behavior changeBehavior change methodsHealth careDiseasePhysical therapyGerontologyPsychologyFamily medicineNursingPhysical activityEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in the United States. Maintaining healthy levels of physical activity is critical to cardiovascular health, but many older adults are inactive. There is a growing body of evidence linking low motivation and inactivity. Standard behavioral counseling techniques used within the primary care setting strive to increase motivation, but often do not emphasize the key component of self-control. The addition of electronic activity monitors (EAMs) to counseling protocols may provide more effective behavior change and increase overall motivation for exercise through interactive self-monitoring, feedback, and social support from other users. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to conduct a three month intervention trial that will test the feasibility of adding an EAM system to brief counseling within a primary care setting. Participants (n=40) will be randomized to receive evidence-based brief counseling plus either an EAM or a pedometer. METHODS: Throughout the intervention, we will test its feasibility and acceptability, the change in primary outcomes (cardiovascular risk and physical activity), and the change in secondary outcomes (adherence, weight and body composition, health status, motivation, physical function, psychological feelings, and self-regulation). Upon completion of the intervention, we will also conduct focus groups with the participants and with primary care stakeholders. RESULTS: The study started recruitment in October 2015 and is scheduled to be completed by October 2016. CONCLUSIONS: This project will lay the groundwork and establish the infrastructure for intervention refinement and ultimately translation within the primary care setting in order to prevent cardiovascular disease on a population level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02554435; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02554435 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation/6fUlW5tdT).

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.017

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→