MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111506282 · doi:10.1080/21642850.2020.1850287

Effectiveness of a web-based computer-tailored intervention promoting physical activity for adults from Quebec City: a randomized controlled trial

2020· article· en· W3111506282 on OpenAlexafffundabout
François Boudreau, Gilles R. Dagenais, Hein de Vries, Michel Jean Louis Walthouwer, José Côté, Ginette Turbide, Anne-Sophie Bourlaud, Paul Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology and Behavioral Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Web applicationPhysical activityPhysical therapyMedicineWorld Wide WebPsychologyComputer scienceNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a 3-month web-based computer-tailored intervention on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in adults. METHODS: A total of 242 Canadian adults aged between 35 and 70 years were randomized to an experimental group receiving the intervention or a waiting list control group. The fully automated web-based computer-tailored physical activity intervention consists of seven 10- to 15-min sessions over an 8-week period. The theoretical underpinning of the intervention is based on the I-Change Model. RESULTS: < .05). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that this intervention is effective in enhancing self-reported MVPA in this adult population in the short term; however, this needs to be confirmed in a larger trial with better engagement to the web-based sessions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Psychology and Behavioral MedicineSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207