Smartphone-Delivered Peer Physical Activity Counseling Program for Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury: Protocol for Development and Pilot Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) is a critical component of a healthy lifestyle for individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, most individuals are not sufficiently active to accrue health benefits. The Active Living Lifestyles program for individuals with SCI who use manual wheelchairs (ALLWheel) targets important psychological factors that are associated with LTPA uptake and adherence while overcoming some barriers associated with participation restrictions. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the paper is to describe the protocol for the development and evaluation of the ALLWheel program for individuals with SCI who use manual wheelchairs. METHODS: The first three stages of the Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions (ie, preclinical, modeling, exploratory) are described. The preclinical phase will consist of scoping and systematic reviews and review of theory. The intervention will be modeled by expert opinions and consensus through focus groups and Delphi surveys with individuals with SCI, clinicians, and community partners. Finally, the feasibility and potential influence of the ALLWheel program on LTPA and psychological outcomes will be evaluated. RESULTS: This project is funded by the Craig H Neilsen Foundation, the Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé, and the Canadian Disability Participation Project and is currently underway. CONCLUSIONS: Using peer trainers and mobile phone technology may help to cultivate autonomy-supportive environments that also enhance self-efficacy. Following a framework for developing and evaluating a novel intervention that includes input from stakeholders at all stages will ensure the final product (ie, a replicable intervention) is desirable to knowledge users and ready for evaluation in a randomized controlled trial. If effective, the ALLWheel program has the potential to reach a large number of individuals with SCI to promote LTPA uptake and adherence. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/10798.
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
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 | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.007 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".