Combatting Sedentary Lifestyles: Can Exercise Prescription in the Emergency Department Lead to Behavioral Change in Patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Emergency department (ED) patients with chronic disease are known to benefit from exercise; however, there are few studies examining the prescription of exercise in the ED. We asked, is exercise prescription in the ED feasible and effective? Methods In this pilot prospective block randomized trial, consented patients were divided into control and intervention groups. The control group received routine care. The intervention group received combined written and verbal prescriptions for moderate exercise of 150 minutes/week. Both groups were followed up by phone at two months. The primary outcome was achieving 150 minutes of exercise per week. Secondary outcomes included change in exercise and differences in reported median weekly exercise. Results Follow-up was completed for 23/28 patients (11 control; 12 intervention). Baseline reported median (with interquartile range) weekly exercise was similar between groups: control 0 (0-0) minutes, intervention 0 (0-45) minutes. There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome at two months (control 3/11; intervention 4/12, relative risk [RR] 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-4.6; p=1.0). There was a significant increase in median exercise from baseline in both groups, but no difference between the groups (control 75 (10-225) minutes; intervention 120 (52.5-150) minutes; NS). A post hoc comparison of patients actually receiving intervention vs. no intervention revealed a significant increase in patients meeting the primary outcome (no intervention 0/8; intervention 7/15, RR 2.0 (95% CI 1.2-3.4); p=0.05). Conclusion The improvement seen in patients receiving the exercise prescription intervention, and the increase in reported exercise in both groups suggests that exercise prescription for ED patients may be beneficial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".