Outcomes On Physical Activity Levels By Minimal Contact Intervention At A University Setting: Preliminary Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of an intervention program of minimal contact using Whatsapp® and Fitbit® over the levels of physical activity on a university population. METHODS: We designed a 12-week intervention program of minimal contact on a university population. Participants were randomly assigned into two groups: intervention (IN) and control (CO). From a total of 177 participants, 19 (11 men, 8 women, aged 18 - 32) completed the program and had the complete accelerometry information measured with the wGT3X-BT® accelerometer. The program consisted of messages sent by Whatsapp® every week based on The Canadian 24 hrs movement: sweat, step, sleep and sit. All the messages were based on the motivational self-determination theory. The participants also wear a portable Fitbit Flex® 2 for 12 weeks. We evaluated the moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) levels and sedentary behaviors in minutes/day and percentage of weekly wearing time by accelerometry using the IPEN criteria. We compared the outcomes by group (t-test, U Mann-Whitney) and time (paired T-test, Wilcoxon). RESULTS: Both groups met the recommendations of MVPA in high proportion (IN=83.3%, CO=85.7%, >150 min/w). There were no significant differences in MVPA nor sedentary levels between groups at baseline and after 12 weeks. MVPA (in time and percentage) and time in sedentary activities decreased, however, the percentage of sedentary activities increased in IN group but decreased in the CO group. Nonetheless, these differences were no significant. Sedentary behaviors were very high in both groups. Independently of the intervention and the assessment moment, subjects spent more of the 60% of the wearing time on sedentary activities (Table). CONCLUSIONS: This intervention was not effective to increase MVPA levels or decrease sedentary behaviors. Probably more time is needed to improve the entire 24 hrs movement component and/or the minimal contact should be more supervised in this sample.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".