Cognitive-bias modification intervention to improve physical activity in patients following a rehabilitation programme: protocol for the randomised controlled IMPACT trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Being physically active is associated with a wide range of health benefits in patients. However, many patients do not engage in the recommended levels of physical activity (PA). To date, interventions promoting PA in patients mainly rely on providing knowledge about the benefits associated with PA to develop their motivation to be active. Yet, these interventions focusing on changing patients' conscious goals have proven to be rather ineffective in changing behaviours. Recent research on automatic factors (eg, automatic approach tendencies) may provide additional targets for interventions. However, the implementation and evaluation of intervention designed to change these automatic bases of PA are rare. Consequently, little is known about whether and how interventions that target automatically activated processes towards PA can be effective in changing PA behaviours. The Improving Physical Activity (IMPACT) trial proposes to fill this knowledge gap by investigating the effect of a cognitive-bias modification intervention aiming to modify the automatic approach towards exercise-related stimuli on PA among patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The IMPACT trial is a single-centre, placebo (sham controlled), triple-blinded, phase 3 randomised controlled trial that will recruit 308 patients enrolled in a rehabilitation programme in the Division of General Medical Rehabilitation at the University Hospital of Geneva (Switzerland) and intends to follow up them for up to 1 year after intervention. Immediately after starting a rehabilitation programme, patients will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either the cognitive-bias modification intervention consisting of a 12-session training programme performed over 3 weeks or a control condition (placebo). The cognitive-bias modification intervention aims to improve PA levels through a change in automatic approach tendencies towards PA and sedentary behaviours. The primary outcome is the sum of accelerometer-based time spent in light-intensity, moderate-intensity and vigorous-intensity PA over 1 week after the cognitive-bias modification intervention (in minutes per week). Secondary outcomes are related to changes in (1) automatic approach tendencies and self-reported motivation to be active, (2) physical health and (3) mental health. Sedentary behaviours and self-reported PA will also be examined. The main time point of the analysis will be the week after the end of the intervention. These outcomes will also be assessed during the rehabilitation programme, as well as 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the intervention for secondary analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This trial was approved by the Ethics Committee of Geneva Canton, Switzerland (reference number: CCER2019-02257). All participants will give an informed consent to participate in the study. Results will be published in relevant scientific journals and be disseminated in international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: The clinical trial was registered at the German clinical trials register (reference number: DRKS00023617); Pre-results.
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 | 0.031 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.011 |
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".