MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2767244088 · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4874-7

Evaluation of a physical activity intervention for new parents: protocol paper for a randomized trial

2017· article· en· W2767244088 on OpenAlexafffund
Alison Quinlan, Ryan E. Rhodes, Mark R. Beauchamp, Danielle Symons Downs, Darren E. R. Warburton, Chris M. Blanchard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiostatisticsDyadMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyPostpartum periodPhysical activityLongitudinal studyPublic healthTheory of planned behaviorDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyPregnancyPsychiatryNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Identifying critical life transitions in people's physical activity behaviors may illuminate the most opportune intervention apertures for chronic disease prevention. A substantive evidence base now indicates that parenthood is one of these critical transition points for physical activity decline. This study will examine whether a brief theory-based intervention can prevent a decline in physical activity among new parents over 6 months following intervention. This study protocol represents the first dyad-based physical activity initiative in the parenthood literature involving both mothers and fathers; prior research has focused on only mothers or only fathers (albeit limited), and has shown only short-term changes in physical activity. This study will be investigating whether a theory-based physical activity intervention can maintain or improve moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity measured via accelerometry of new parents over a 6 month period following intervention compared to a control group. METHODS: This study is a 6-month longitudinal randomized controlled trial. Parents are measured at baseline (2 months postpartum) with two assessment points at 6 weeks (3.5 months postpartum) and 3 months (5 months postpartum) and a final follow-up assessment at 6 months (8 months postpartum). The content of the theory-based intervention was derived from the results of our prior longitudinal trial of new parents using an adapted theory of planned behavior framework to predict changes in physical activity. RESULTS: A total of 152 couples have been recruited to date. Sixteen couples dropped out after baseline and a total of 88 couples have completed their 6-month measures. DISCUSSION: If the intervention proves successful, couple-based physical activity promotion efforts among parents could be a promising avenue to pursue to help mitigate the declines of physical activity levels during parenthood. These findings could inform public health materials and practitioners. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with the Clinical Trials Registry maintained by the National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health on April 19, 2014. The registration ID is NCT02290808 .

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0110.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1240.024

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→