Changing physical activity counselling outcomes among future health professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the current attitudes, beliefs, confidence and knowledge of students in health-related fields with regard to physical activity (PA) promotion, and to measure changes in these variables following an evidence-based PA education intervention. METHODS: A single group pre-post test design was used to explore the impact of the intervention on changes in attitudes, beliefs, confidence, and knowledge about PA counselling and beliefs about obesity. The pre-post questionnaires contained measures of barriers to PA counselling and participants' attitudes, beliefs, confidence, and knowledge about PA counselling and obesity. RESULTS: Findings demonstrated that the PA intervention increased participants' attitudes (Mchange = 0.15, p = .031), beliefs (Mchange = 0.35, p = .002), and knowledge (Mchange = 0.27, p = .001) with regard to PA counselling, and negatively impacted obesity-related beliefs (Mchange = -1.92, p = .029). Significant increases in participants' confidence to perform counselling based on personal knowledge (Mchange = 7.71, p = .001), confidence to assess a client's readiness for PA (Mchange = 6.96, p = .032), and confidence to refer patients requiring additional clearance or information were also observed (Mchange = 11.25, p = .001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that a one-hour PA intervention can be effective in improving the attitudes, beliefs, confidence and knowledge of students in health-related fields with regard to PA promotion, but that more attention needs to be given to how PA is framed within obesity discourse.Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Dr. Kevin Power of Memorial University for his assistance during the preparation of the evidence-based PA education intervention, as well as Dr. Jonathon Fowles of Acadia University and Exercise is Medicine Canada for his guidance and support in the development of this project.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".