Buddy-Motivational Interviewing (buddy-MI) to Increase Physical Activity in Community Settings: Study Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the development and evaluation of a novel buddy-motivational interviewing intervention intended to help apparently healthy but relatively sedentary adults to adopt and maintain regular physical activity for health and fitness. Many people experience great difficulty in initiating physical activity (“the getting going problem”) and behavioural regression is common (“the keeping it going problem”). Typically there is a rather large gap between what people know to be healthy and what they actually do. This intervention is an adaptation of motivational interviewing in that it adds client-selected motivational-buddies who can provide in-session input as well as ongoing out-of-session support focused on strengthening clients’ motivation for and movement toward their physical activity goals. A pragmatic parallel group randomised controlled trial with 12-month follow-up aims to deliver and assess the effectiveness of the intervention in a format that could realistically be implemented within primary care, workplaces, schools or other similar setting. The study is due to report clinical effectiveness findings in 2014.
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 | 0.035 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.013 |
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".