The Effects of a Supplemental, Theory-Based Physical Activity Counseling Intervention for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is a cornerstone in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). This pilot investigation explores the effects of a standard diabetes education program compared with a supplemental PA intervention on diabetes-related health outcomes. METHODS: Using a prospective 2-armed design, 96 adults with T2DM were randomly assigned to either standard care (diabetes education program; n = 49) or standard care supplemented with an 8-week, individualized-counseling and community-based PA component (n = 47). Measurements were taken at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were changes in PA (self-report) and HbA1c. Between group changes were compared using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and changes over time using repeated-measures ANOVA. RESULTS: In comparison with standard care, the supplemental group demonstrated an increase in PA (Ps < 0.01) and cardiorespiratory fitness (Ps < 0.05) from baseline to all follow-up time-points. HbA1c levels declined (P < .05) from baseline to all time points in the standard care group. Reduction in cholesterol-ratio (P < .01), increase in HDL (P < .05), and reductions in blood pressure, resting heart rate and BMI (approaching statistical significance Ps < 0.10) were also reported for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: PA counseling in addition to standard care is effective for promoting PA behavior change and positive health-related outcomes among individuals with T2DM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".