Evaluating the Feasibility, Acceptability, and Engagement of an mHealth Physical Activity Intervention for Adults With Spinal Cord Injury Who Walk: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test a partnered, self-determination theory-informed mobile health intervention called SCI Step Together, using an 8-week randomized controlled trial design. The aim of SCI Step Together is to increase the quantity and quality of physical activity (PA) among adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) who walk. The SCI Step Together program provides PA modules and PA self-monitoring tools and facilitates peer and health coach support. Process, resource, management, and scientific feasibility were assessed, and participants completed questionnaires at baseline, mid-, and postintervention to assess determinants and outcomes of PA. Interviews were conducted to evaluate acceptability. Results suggest that the program demonstrated good feasibility, acceptability, and engagement. The intervention group (n = 11) had greater fulfillment of basic psychological needs and knowledge (p = .05) than the control group (n = 9). There were no significant interaction effects for other outcomes. The SCI Step Together program is feasible and acceptable and efficacious for improving some psychosocial variables. Results may inform SCI mobile health programs.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".