Individualized behaviour change strategies for physical activity in multiple sclerosis (IPAC-MS): protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic, degenerative disease of the central nervous system. Because of the long-term and unpredictable nature of the disease, the burden of MS is significant from both a patient and societal perspective. Despite a recent influx of disease-modifying therapies to treat MS, many individuals continue to experience disability that negatively affects productivity and quality of life. Previous research indicates that physical activity has a positive impact on walking function in individuals with MS, in addition to the usual beneficial effects on overall health. However, most people with MS are not active enough to gain these benefits, and a lack of support to initiate and maintain physical activity has been identified as a major barrier. This study will evaluate the impact of a novel intervention involving individualized behavioural change strategies delivered by neurophysiotherapists on increasing physical activity levels in individuals with MS who are currently inactive.Methods/Design This single-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial will be conducted in Saskatchewan, Canada. Eligible participants include individuals with MS who are ambulatory, but identified as currently inactive by the self-reported Godin Leisure-time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ). The intervention will be delivered by neurophysiotherapists and includes individualised behavioural change strategies aimed at increasing physical activity over a 12-month period. The control group will receive usual care during the 12-month study period. The primary outcome is the change in physical activity level, as measured by the change in the GLTEQ score from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the change in patient-reported outcome measures assessing MS-specific symptoms, confidence and quality of life.Discussion Physical activity has been identified as a top research priority by the MS community. Findings from this novel study may result in new knowledge that could significantly impact the management and overall health of individuals with MS.
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 | 0.034 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.012 |
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".