The SitLess With MS Program: Intervention Feasibility and Change in Sedentary Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study reports on the feasibility of the SitLess with MS trial, an intervention targeting sedentary behavior in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS). DESIGN: Single group, pre-post intervention design. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N=41) with mild to moderate disability from MS. INTERVENTION: The intervention was 15 weeks, with a 7-week follow-up, and included 2 stages: SitLess and MoveMore. During the SitLess stage, participants were encouraged to break up prolonged sitting bouts over a 7-week period, whereas the MoveMore stage promoted increased steps per day and interrupting sitting over a 7-week period. The intervention was delivered through weekly one-on-one coaching sessions via telerehabilitation and an accompanying newsletter based on social-cognitive theory. Activity was monitored throughout the program using a Fitbit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Process (eg, recruitment) and resource and management (eg, personnel requirements) metrics were assessed, along with efficacy outcomes (eg, effect). Progression criteria were set a priori and were related to safety, fatigue, satisfaction, and attrition. Sedentary behavior, measured using the ActivPal, was reported pre- and postintervention, as well as 7 weeks postintervention. Effect sizes (pre to post, pre to 7 weeks post) were calculated for the sedentary behavior outcomes (eg, time sitting, transitions from sitting to standing, number of long sitting bouts). Experiences with the intervention were explored through an online survey. RESULTS: Forty-one participants enrolled, 39 of whom completed the intervention. All participants but 1 were satisfied with the experience. Pre-post intervention effect sizes for change in total sedentary time, number of transitions from sit to stand, and number of long (>30 min) sedentary bouts were 0.34, 0.02, and 0.39 respectively. All a priori progression criteria were met. CONCLUSIONS: The SitLess with MS program, a novel intervention that emphasized and facilitated sitting less and moving more, was feasible and resulted in small changes in sedentary behavior in individuals with MS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".