Raising Awareness of the Importance of Exercise Training in Solid Organ Transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients experience impaired exercise capacity and low physical activity levels, even years after transplant. Healthcare professionals and SOT recipients alike, cite lack of knowledge on the guidelines for exercise training as a barrier to engaging in physical activity. The objectives of this study were 1) to increase the awareness of healthcare and medical professionals on the evidence for exercise training; 2) to conduct an educational symposium to raise the awareness of SOT recipients on exercise; and 3) to develop web-based resources for professionals and patients to disseminate knowledge in this field. Materials & Methods The steps of this dissemination project were overseen by a national committee (https://www.cntrp.ca/can-restore-steering-committee). The key steps in implementation included: 1) summarizing the research evidence on the effects of exercise in SOT; 2) providing on-site, interactive presentations on the evidence-base for exercise to healthcare professionals, physicians and program directors at the largest multi-organ transplant centers in Canada; 3) conducting a two-day, workshop for SOT recipients with education sessions and hands-on fitness and sports training, and 4) the development of web-based resources. Results & Discussion We provided presentations at 9 multi-organ transplant centres in Canada, with over 280 healthcare and medical professionals in attendance. The mean evaluation rating of the presentations was 4.4 (1=poor, 2=fair, 3=fair, 4=good, 5=excellent). The educational workshop was delivered for patients and their families, with 96 individuals in attendance. Attendees ranged in age from 4 to over 71 years old and represented all SOT types. Sessions were rated highly on all criteria [mean = 4.3 to 4.8 for education, and 4.6 to 4.9 for training]. A bilingual website was created with resources for healthcare professionals and patients, including videos and slides of the presentations and education workshop (www.cntrp.ca/exercise). Conclusion This dissemination project provided unique and sustainable opportunities for healthcare and medical professionals to increase their knowledge and enhance their ability to apply the evidence for exercise training in their practice. With increased knowledge, patients were also empowered to engage in exercise, and to advocate for improved access to rehabilitation programs and educational materials at their transplant centres. This project also created a national network of individuals interested in improving exercise and physical activity opportunities for SOT recipients in Canada, which will lead to better engagement in research and clinical practice in this field. Canadian Institutes of Health Research - Dissemination Grant. Toronto Transplant Institute - Education Innovation Grant. Astellas Pharma - Unrestricted Grant.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".