Effect of combined exercise training and behaviour change counselling versus usual care on physical activity in patients awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty: A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to determine if a novel intervention that combined individualised exercise training with behaviour change counselling based on Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) constructs could elicit long-term increase in physical activity (PA) and reduce comorbidity development among people requiring hip or knee arthroplasty. Method: A pre-registered two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of a 12-week individualised exercise program combined with behavioural counselling delivered by accredited exercise physiologists, versus usual care to Osteoarthritis (OA) patients on public surgery waitlists. Participants were followed up at 6 months after baseline (pre-surgery) and again at 6 months post-surgery. Within and between group differences in post-surgery PA (as measured by ActivPal accelerometer), pain, function, quality of life, HAPA-based behavioural and psychological constructs, and health risk factors were analysed. Results: 63 participants (34 Female; Mean age = 66.4 ± 7.2 yrs) consented to participate in this study. At 6 months post baseline and 6 months post-surgery there were significant improvements in PA, pain, function, and quality of life, however there were no significant differences in the between group responses. Significant between group changes were observed in several psychological constructs related to volition at 6 months post baseline; however, these had disappeared by 6 months post-surgery. Conclusions: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN 12617000357358) Date of registration: 08/03/2017.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 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".