Supervised Group Exercise in Axial Spondyloarthritis: Patients' Satisfaction and Perspective on Evidence‐Based Enhancements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Supervised group exercise (SGE) has been proven effective in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA), but its contents and dosage do not always comply with current scientific insight. This aim of this study was to describe axial SpA patients' satisfaction with current SGE and perspective on potential evidence-based SGE enhancements. METHODS: Patients with axial SpA who participated in SGE in 4 regions in The Netherlands (n = 118) completed a cross-sectional survey on their satisfaction with features of their current SGE (8 questions scored on a 3-point Likert scale; 1 overall grade, scored according to an 11-point scale) and their perspective on the introduction of appropriately dosed cardiorespiratory and strengthening exercise, monitoring of exercise intensity, periodic reassessments, patient education, and supervision by physical therapists with specific expertise (4 dichotomous questions and one 5-point Likert scale). RESULTS: Most patients were satisfied with the current total intensity (84 of 112 patients [75%]), duration (93 of 111 patients [84%]), and load (89 of 117 patients [76%]) of the program and the proportion of mobility (102 of 114 patients [90%]), strengthening (90 of 115 patients [78%]), and cardiorespiratory exercise (82 of 114 patients [72%]). The median overall grade of the program was a 7 (interquartile range 7-8). Most patients agreed with the implementation of more frequent (home) exercise (73 of 117 patients [62%]), heart-rate monitoring (97 of 117 patients [83%]), and annual reassessments (97 of 118 patients [82%]), whereas 50% agreed with the introduction of patient education (37 of 74 patients). The majority found supervision by therapists specializing in axial SpA to be of high importance (105 of 118 patients [89%]). CONCLUSION: The majority of SGE participants with axial SpA were satisfied with current SGE but also agreed with enhancements in line with scientific evidence. Current satisfaction levels indicate that a planned implementation strategy, including education and addressing potential barriers and facilitators for the uptake of enhancements, is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".