A Review of Implementation Outcome Measures of School‐Based Physical Activity Interventions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Systematic review | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
| opus | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it