MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610816048 · doi:10.1111/josh.12514

A Review of Implementation Outcome Measures of School‐Based Physical Activity Interventions

2017· review· en· W2610816048 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sonam Shah, Kenneth R. Allison, Nour Schoueri‐Mychasiw, Beata Pach, Heather Manson, Karen Vu‐Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of School Health · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidelityPsychological interventionImplementation researchReliability (semiconductor)Medical educationConstruct (python library)Construct validityApplied psychologyMeasure (data warehouse)PsychologyMedicineComputer scienceProcess managementPsychometricsNursingEngineeringClinical psychologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Measuring the implementation of school-based physical activity (PA) interventions is an important prerequisite in assessing their impact. Prior to conducting a study to assess the implementation of the daily physical activity (DPA) policy in Ontario, Canada, a literature review was conducted to identify existing survey instruments to measure 5 implementation outcomes: adoption, fidelity, implementation cost, reach, and sustainability. METHODS: A search for survey instruments to assess these implementation outcomes at the teacher and school administrator levels was conducted in 7 bibliographic databases, as well as the gray literature. Each survey instrument was coded as assessing 1 of the 5 implementation outcomes if it included at least 1 item measuring the construct. RESULTS: Twenty-three survey instruments were identified. None of the instruments were specifically developed to measure the implementation outcomes. Fidelity was the most common implementation outcome measured, followed by adoption. The least common implementation outcome measured was sustainability. Thirty-five percent of survey instruments assessed were previously tested for validity and 26% were previously tested for reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review, a gap in available instruments to measure implementation outcomes of school-based PA programs was identified. An adapted theoretical framework, presented here, has potential application in future implementation studies.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Systematic reviewhigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
opusMetaresearch
Domain: Methods · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.106
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.106
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0150.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.950
GPT teacher head0.814
Teacher spread0.137 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of School HealthSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceCategoryMetaresearchFrench-language works237,207