Management of multiple sclerosis symptoms through reductions in sedentary behaviour: protocol for a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are less physically active, and more sedentary than their peers despite evidence that activity helps to manage MS-related symptoms. Traditional approaches to increasing physical activity, such as exercise programmes, can be challenging for people with MS, especially those with walking disability. Focusing on decreasing prolonged sitting, and increasing light-intensity activities may be more feasible and result in more sustainable behaviour change in persons with MS. This paper describes the rationale and development of a sedentary behaviour intervention targeting persons with MS. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a sedentary behaviour intervention will be tested using a prepost intervention design in 40 adults with MS. The 22-week programme includes a 15-week intervention and a 7-week follow-up. The intervention itself is divided into two stages: Sit-Less and Move-More. The Sit-Less stage is designed to encourage participants to break up prolonged sitting bouts, while the Move-More stage promotes increasing steps per day, in addition to interrupting sitting. The intervention is delivered through individual coaching sessions between an interventionist and a participant, and an accompanying newsletter based on social cognitive theory. A Fitbit is used to monitor activity throughout the programme. Process, resource and management metrics will be recorded (eg, retention, time required for communication during the trial). Sedentary and physical activities and MS-related symptoms are measured before and after the intervention and again during follow-up. Experiences with the programme are explored through an online survey and one-on-one interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Health Research Ethics Board at the University of Alberta granted permission to conduct this study. Results will be disseminated in scientific journals and conferences, and the MS Society of Alberta. Physical therapists and kinesiologists are important stakeholders and will be targeted during dissemination. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03136744.
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 | 0.048 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.022 |
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".