Maintenance of physical activity and sedentary behavior change, and physical activity and sedentary behavior change after an abridged intervention: Secondary outcomes from the ACTIVATE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This brief report examines the maintenance of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary behavior changes approximately 12 weeks after the delivery of the ACTIVATE Trial primary intervention (use of the Garmin Vivofit 2 activity tracker coupled with a behavioral feedback and goal-setting session and 5 telephone-delivered health coaching sessions). We also examine the efficacy of an abridged intervention (use of the Garmin Vivofit 2 only) in the waitlist control group. METHODS: A pre-post design was employed to examine the secondary aims of the ACTIVATE Trial (n = 80; mean age = 62 years). MVPA and sedentary behavior were measured using Actigraph and activPAL accelerometers after delivery of the primary intervention (T2), and again 12 weeks later (T3). Linear mixed models with random effects were used to examine within-group changes in MVPA and sitting time variables. RESULTS: After the 12-week follow-up period, women in the primary intervention group had maintained their higher levels of MVPA (change from T2 to T3 = 14 min/wk; 95% CI = -18 to 46; P = .37). However, their sitting time increased slightly, by 7 min/d (95% CI = -20 to 34; P = .58), but it did not return to its preintervention level. After receiving the Garmin Vivofit 2, the waitlist control group increased their MVPA by 33 min/wk (95% CI = 3-64; P = .03) and reduced their sitting time by 38 min/d (95% CI = -69 to -7; P = .02) over the same 12-week period. CONCLUSION: The secondary outcomes from the ACTIVATE Trial suggest that wearable technology may generate sustainable changes in MVPA and sitting time. Wearable technology alone may be sufficient to change behavior, at least in the short term.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".