A Telephone-Assisted Planning Intervention to Promote Parental Support for Physical Activity Among Children and Youth With Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhanced parental support could increase physical activity (PA) among children and youth with disabilities (CYD). The multi-process action control (M-PAC) model highlights behavioral strategies such as action planning (AP) as critical in facilitating parental support. There is no known research examining AP as a tool to promote parental PA support among parents of CYD. Purpose: Evaluate a telephone-assisted AP intervention for promoting parental PA support. Method: Parents of CYD were randomized to a telephone-assisted AP intervention (n= 28) or no-support control group (n= 29). Results: Compared to the no-support control group, parents who received the telephone-assisted AP intervention were 80% more likely to action plan. A significant time x condition interaction was found for behavioural strategies (i.e., planning, monitoring) (F(1,36)= 4.14, p= .049). Conclusion: Parents in the telephone-assisted AP intervention increased behavioural strategies to support their childs PA, which suggests AP support may enhance AP and parent support for PA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".