Movement Rx: Improving Physical Activity Education In Physiatry Residency Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of an educational intervention on physical activity (PA) assessment and prescription knowledge and skills among physiatry resident physicians at the University of Calgary. METHODS: An 8-hour curriculum, including 2-hours of general PA knowledge and behavioural change techniques, 2-hours of PA for special populations, 2-hours of practice cases, and 2-hour practice simulation cases and debriefing was implemented in the Calgary Physiatry residency program educational half-day curriculum. All full-time physiatry residents in all 5-years of training were eligible to participate, with the exception of the authors who created the curriculum. A physical activity written exam was used to test resident knowledge before and after the curriculum. Descriptive analysis and two tailed paired t-tests were used to compare pre and post test scores, with a pre-determined statistical significance of p < 0.05. RESULTS: Seven of 8 eligible residents completed the baseline physical activity written examination with an average score of 47% (SD 10%, CI 38-56%). Resident knowledge significantly improved (p = 0.00086) after the curriculum, with an average score of 78% (SD 16%, CI 63-93%). Prior to the curriculum 12.5% of residents reported that their residency education had prepared them to prescribe physical activity in their future practice. After the curriculum this improved to 75% of residents agreeing that their residency education had prepared them. All residents agreed that the curriculum had improved their knowledge of physical activity assessment and changed their practice. A total of 87.5% of residents felt the use of simulation and debriefing with feedback from standardized patients was more beneficial for learning than an OSCE format. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the 8-hour curriculum was successful at improving resident knowledge of physical activity assessment and prescription. Future work should investigate how the curriculum may objectively change clinician behaviour in clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".