MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951112704

Get In Motion: More than leisure-time physical activity participation

2014· article· en· W2951112704 on OpenAlexaffabout
Krystn Orr, Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos, Jennifer R. Tomasone, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)AutonomyActivities of daily livingPsychologyPhysical therapyLife satisfactionGerontologyMedicineSocial psychologyNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Get In Motion (GIM) is an evidence- and theory-based physical activity telephone counselling service for Canadian adults with a spinal cord injury (SCI). GIM sessions are based on the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) model, with the counsellor facilitating behaviour change discussions over a 6-month time period. Previous research has shown GIM to be an effective service for increasing intentions and leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) behaviour among its clients. The purpose of the current study was to examine the secondary effects of the GIM on participation and quality of life among its clients. Methods: Clients’ (n=45; 50% males) demographics were collected over the phone, including age (51.46 ± 12.36 years), level of injury (50% with paraplegia), years post-injury (17.00 ± 17.51 years), upon enrolment.  Secondary measures relating to participation and quality of life (i.e., Satisfaction with Life (SWL), autonomy and participation (AP), and self-efficacy of activities of daily living (ADLs)) were obtained at baseline and 6-months. Results: Using paired sample t-tests, a trend was found for positive changes in AP (p = .08) and ADL self-efficacy (p = .07) from baseline to 6-months, with clients reporting greater autonomy (5.16 to 5.49) and greater self-efficacy for accomplishing ADLs (3.92 to 4.28). No significant changes or trends were shown for SWL (p = .50). Conclusion: Overall, the GIM service seems to have a positive effect on some aspects of participation and QOL for its clients. To further increase clients’ life satisfaction, autonomy and participation, and ADL self-efficacy, it may be necessary to include other tools and strategies into GIM counselling sessions such as creating a more well rounded discussion which addresses social support networks, and sport or group activity participation. In the future, the long-term effects of the GIM service should be assessed along with the adoption of LTPA participation post-intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository)Same topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207