An Outsourced Health-enhancing Physical Activity Program for People with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Study of the Maintenance Phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe changes of health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA), health perception, and functioning during the second year of a 2-year support program, determine aspects of adherence and response, and describe perceptions of the program. METHODS: Out of 220 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 177 participated in the followup. Group support, strength training, and moderate-intensity aerobic activity were encouraged. Data collection included HEPA, perceived health, functioning, and perceptions of the program. Participants with unchanged/improved general health perception and at least 2 of aerobic capacity, grip strength, or timed standing were considered responders. RESULTS: Current and maintained HEPA decreased from 82% to 75% (p = 0.0141) and from 41% to 27% (p < 0.0001) during the second year. Minor declines in quality of life and activity limitation occurred (p = 0.0395 and 0.0038, respectively), while outcome expectations for benefits of physical activity increased (p = 0.0010 and 0.0186) and waist circumference tapered off (p = 0.0070). Strength training was performed on average 41 and 35 times among responders (n = 54) and nonresponders (n = 105), respectively (p = 0.2708); HEPA 194 and 171 days, respectively (p = 0.0828); and support group meetings 12 and 10 times, respectively (p = 0.0943). Strength training, aerobic activity, and short text message reminders were perceived as most valuable; step registration and the self-monitoring walk tests were less appreciated. CONCLUSION: About one-fourth of the originally sedentary individuals with RA sustained their new HEPA behaviors after 2 years and most improvements of health and functioning were sustained. Structured use of behavior change techniques and a second year to support maintenance with a reduced program might help patients with RA to sustain HEPA behavior.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".