Preliminary effects and acceptability of a co-produced physical activity referral intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To explore the preliminary effects and acceptability of a co-produced physical activity referral intervention. Study Design: Longitudinal design with data collected at baseline and post a 12-week physical activity referral intervention. Setting: Community leisure centre. Methods: In all, 32 adults with controlled lifestyle-related health conditions took part in a physical activity referral intervention (co-produced by a multidisciplinary stakeholder group) comprising 12 weeks subsidised fitness centre access plus four behaviour change consultations. A complete case analysis ( t-tests and magnitude-based inferences) was conducted to assess baseline-to-12-week change in physical activity, cardiometabolic, and psychological measures. Semi-structured interviews were conducted ( n = 12) to explore experiences of the intervention. Results: Mean improvements were observed in cardiorespiratory fitness (3.6 mL kg -1 min -1 [95% confidence interval: 1.9–5.4], p < .001) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (12.6 minutes per day [95% confidence interval: 4.3–29.6], p = .013). Participants were positive about the support received from exercise referral practitioners, but experienced some challenges in a busy and under staffed gym environment. Conclusions: A co-produced physical activity referral intervention elicited short-term improvements in physical activity and cardiometabolic health. Further refinements may be required, via ongoing feedback between stakeholders, researchers and service users, to achieve the intended holistic physical activity focus of the intervention, prior to a definitive trial.
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 | 0.021 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".