Working Out with F.I.D.O. (Frequency, Intensity, Duration, & Outcomes): A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: Dog owners walk more per week compared to non-dog owners; however, 60% of dog owners are still not walking their dogs at intensities sufficient to reap optimal health benefits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of a 9-week randomized controlled trial involving a program of six weekly scheduled instructor-led group dog walks supplemented with theory-based strategies to encourage increased dog walking among dog owners in Greater Victoria, BC. Methods: Participants were 17 adults aged 18+, who owned at least one healthy and friendly dog aged six months+, who were not meeting recommended moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) guidelines. Data were collected using pedometers, self-report measures, and a program evaluation survey. Results: Feasibility outcomes included 74 interested responses, 23% recruitment rate ( n = 17), 94% retention rate ( n = 16), and 94% adherence rate ( n = 15). Program participants were overall (very) satisfied with the program. Total weekly step counts and average daily step counts, MVPA dog walking, and MVPA with dog (i.e., all leisure time physical activity with dog - e.g., hiking, swimming, biking, playing Frisbee) increased at the end of the program and at follow-up, resulting in large effect sizes when compared to the waitlist-control group. Conclusions: This six-week group dog walking program was feasible, acceptable, and efficacious in encouraging increased dog walking and MVPA among dog owners. It is recommended for future studies to refine initial recruitment strategies, reimburse medical/veterinarian clearance costs to reduce cost-related barriers to participation, and offer a variety of options for program delivery (e.g., different locations/schedules/seasons, online programs, multi-site study) to accommodate more participants.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".