Exercise booster sessions as a mean to maintain the effect of an exercise-intervention - A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise is known to have many beneficial effects. Nevertheless, long-term adherence remains a challenge. A concept suggested to attend this problem is Exercise Booster Sessions (EBS). However, the current knowledge on EBS is limited.Objectives: This systematic review aimed to summarize and synthesize 1) the reported effects of EBS on physical function, pain, quality-of-life and societal costs and 2) delineate the basic components of EBS (frequency, intensity, type and time) following an exercise intervention in all clinical populations.Methods Seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDISCUS, Physiotherapy Evidence Database PEDro, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were electronically searched in August 2021. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise interventions in all clinical populations followed by a period of EBS or a control group not receiving EBS.Results: Five studies on respectively knee osteoarthritis (n = 4) and low back pain (n = 1), reporting four different RCTs, were included. Four studies had a potential high risk of bias, whereas one was rated to have some concerns. One study found a positive effect of EBS on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score, −46.0 (-80.0, −12.0), whereas the others did not find any differences. The frequency of EBS ranged from 0.09 − 1 session/week, and one study found EBS to be cost-effective.Conclusions: Current evidence suggests no or at best moderate effects of EBS on physical function and pain. However, the low number of trials, the potential risk of bias, plus the diversity in trial interventions prevent a firm conclusion.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".