Intervention-related factors associated with physical activity maintenance among post-stroke patients: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review is to i) evaluate the effectiveness of current rehabilitation interventions in promoting short-, moderate-, and long-term physical activity maintenance among patients post-stroke, and ii) to investigate the intervention characteristics associated with the promotion of physical activity maintenance among patients post-stroke. INTRODUCTION: Physical activity and exercise can positively impact post-stroke recovery. However, few patients participate in the recommended levels of physical activity after a stroke. To design better post-stroke programs, the characteristics of current interventions that promote physical activity maintenance need to be identified. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials including adults (age ≥ 18) post-stroke, assessing physical activity via subjective or objective measures with a minimum three-month follow-up, and published in English will be considered for inclusion. METHODS: Literature searches will be conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The quality of the randomized controlled trials will be assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Interventions will be coded using the Behaviour Change Technique Taxonomy version 1. Standardized mean differences of physical activity levels between intervention and control groups will be calculated using study-specific measures and interpreted as small (<0.40), medium (0.40-0.70), or large (>0.70). Meta-analysis of effect sizes will be conducted for short- (three months), moderate- (six months), and long-term (≥12 months) follow-ups. Univariable and multivariable random effects meta-regression using intervention characteristics (setting, delivery method, delivery type, duration, outcome measure, and behavior change techniques) will be conducted to identify predictors of maintenance. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42019131056.
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 | 0.064 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.054 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.005 |
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".