Adapted Motivational Interviewing to Promote Exercise in Adolescents With Congenital Heart Disease: A Pilot Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention to improve moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in adolescents with congenital heart disease. METHODS: Intervention participants received one-on-one telephone-based adapted MI sessions over 3 months. Outcomes were acceptability, change mechanisms (stage of change and self-efficacy), and limited efficacy (physical activity, fitness, and quality of life). RESULTS: Thirty-six participants were randomized. Intervention participants completed 4.2 ± 1.2/6 MI sessions, with no improvements in the high self-efficacy or stage of change observed. Participants accumulated 47.24 ± 16.36 minutes of MVPA/day, and had comparable outcomes to peers without heart disease (except for functional capacity). There was no significant difference in change in any outcome by group. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was acceptable, but effectiveness could not be determined due to the nature and size of sample. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Pediatric cardiac rehabilitation remains the sole effective intervention to increase MVPA in this population.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".