Mechanisms associated with increased physical activity in patients undergoing self-management behaviour modification in the randomised PHYSACTO trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In this analysis of the PHYSACTO® study, we assessed the efficacy of a self-management behaviour modification (SMBM) programme to improve physical activity (PA) levels, and the extent to which effects were mediated by readiness to change, motivation and confidence. Methods PHYSACTO® was a randomised, partially double-blind, parallel-group, 12-week trial to evaluate the effects of treatment on exercise capacity and PA. COPD patients received placebo, tiotropium 5 µg or tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 µg, with or without exercise training, all with an SMBM intervention (the Living Well with COPD programme). Changes were assessed in readiness to change (stage of change visual analogue scale [VAS]), motivation (Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire [TSRQ]) and confidence (Perceived Competence Scale [PCS]) to engage in PA. Results PA was increased in all patients with complete PA data at Week 12 (n=262; +6038 steps·week −1 , p<0.001). Significant increases were observed in patients' readiness to change (VAS 0.7 [0.6–0.8]), autonomous regulation (TRSQ 0.2 [0.1–0.3]) and confidence (PCS 0.5 [0.3–0.6]) (all p<0.01). Of note, 23% of the total effect of SMBM on steps·week −1 was found to be mediated by increases in readiness to change, 5% by TSRQ autonomous regulation and 12% by PCS. Conclusion Our study demonstrated that an SMBM programme delivered to COPD patients increased PA, mediated by an improvement of three key hypothesised mechanisms of change: readiness to change, autonomous motivation and confidence. For the first time, this study shows that an SMBM programme can be successful in altering the mechanisms of change targeted by the intervention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".