Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of interventions to promote adoption and maintenance of physical activity in adults with mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical activity (PA) has diverse benefits for physical and mental health and can reduce symptoms of mental illness. Adults with mental illness face practical, psychosocial and socioeconomic barriers to adopting and maintaining PA, and it is unclear how to effectively promote PA in this group. Supervised exercise interventions provide high support but may not promote autonomous motivation, which is important for PA maintenance. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two interventions to promote PA in adults with mental illness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised controlled trial of two interventions to promote PA: (1) supervised exercise and gym membership and (2) motivational discussions and self-monitoring of PA using fitness trackers. The intervention duration is 16 weeks, including 8 weeks of weekly supervised group sessions, and 8 weeks of access to the gym or fitness tracker unsupervised. Participants are community-dwelling adults recruited from outpatient clinics of public mental health services. The primary outcome is PA adoption assessed using GENEActiv accelerometers worn continuously over 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes measured at baseline, postintervention (8 weeks) and follow-up (16 weeks), include exercise motivation, psychological distress and self-reported PA assessed using self-administered questionnaires and indicators of physical health measured by a researcher blinded to allocation (blood pressure, weight, waist circumference, 6 min walk test). Participant experiences will be assessed using qualitative focus groups with analysis informed by a theoretical model of behaviour (COM-B). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (HREC/17/QRBW/302). We plan to submit a manuscript on protocol development from pilot work, and a manuscript of the results to a peer-reviewed journal. Results will be presented at conferences, community and consumer forums and hospital grand rounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001017314; Pre-results.
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 | 0.060 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.024 |
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.
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".