MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293233852 · doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2022-001373

The ‘miracle cure’: how do primary care physicians prescribe physical activity with the aim of improving clinical outcomes of chronic disease? A scoping review

2022· review· en· W4293233852 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jane S Thornton, Taniya S. Nagpal, Kristen Reilly, Moira Stewart, Robert J. Petrella

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBrock UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLPsychological interventionMEDLINEMedical prescriptionFamily medicineSystematic reviewDiseaseClinical trialIntervention (counseling)Alternative medicineHealth carePhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: To identify how primary care physicians (PCPs) prescribe physical activity for patients with chronic disease, and to determine characteristics of physical activity interventions with improved clinical outcomes of chronic disease. Design: A scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews 2018 was completed. Data sources: Four bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL) and four grey literature/unpublished databases (Proquest, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Canadian Health Research Collections, Clinical Trials) were searched from inception to 7 March 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Studies involving PCP-delivered physical activity prescriptions or counselling for participants with a chronic disease or mental health condition, which reported clinical outcomes were included. Opinion papers, news and magazine articles and case reports were excluded, as were studies in which a physical activity intervention was provided for primary prevention of chronic disease, prescribed by healthcare providers or researchers other than PCPs, or for healthy participants without chronic disease. Results: An initial search identified 4992 records. Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Characteristics of physical activity prescriptions that improved clinical outcomes included: personalised advice; brief intervention; behavioural supports (handouts and/or referrals) and physician follow-up. Reported adverse events were rare. Research gaps include optimal timing and length of follow-up, and the long-term and cost-effectiveness of interventions. Summary/Conclusion: Several characteristics of physical activity counselling by PCPs for patients with chronic disease may improve clinical outcomes, although research gaps remain. Studies exploring the effectiveness of physical activity prescription for individuals with chronic conditions are urgently needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.176
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.176
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0150.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open Sport & Exercise MedicineSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207