Exercise Prescription Practices of a Group of Canadian Internal Medicine Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Internal Medicine (IM) physicians are in a prime role to prescribe exercise for chronic disease management. Our main objectives were to investigate the exercise prescription (EP) practices of IM physicians, and identify barriers and facilitators to EP. Methods: We emailed a confidential 16-item survey to 194 IM physicians practicing in the Central Zone of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA). The survey software Opinio was used for data collection and descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 108 IM physicians completed the survey (response rate = 55.7%). Sixty-five participants reported regular EP (60.2%). The main barriers to EP were lack of resources, time, and training. Facilitators included having patient education materials and EP pads available. Interpretation: Although most participants reported that exercise was important for chronic disease management, about 40% did not report regularly prescribing it. Enabling facilitators and addressing barriers may improve EP practices for this group of IM physicians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".