Development, Acceptability, and Usability of a Virtual Intervention for Vertebral Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This project aimed to develop a virtual intervention for vertebral fractures (VIVA) to implement the international recommendations for the nonpharmacological management of osteoporotic vertebral fractures and to test its acceptability and usability. METHODS: VIVA was developed in accordance with integrated knowledge translation principles and was informed by the Behavioral Change Wheel, the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the affordability, practicability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, acceptability, side effects/safety, and equity (APEASE) criteria. The development of the prototype of VIVA involved 3 steps: understanding target behaviors, identifying intervention options, and identifying content and implementation options. The VIVA prototype was delivered to 9 participants to assess its acceptability and usability. RESULTS: VIVA includes 7 1-on-1 virtual sessions delivered by a physical therapist over 5 weeks. Each session lasts 45 minutes and is divided in 3 parts: education, training, and behavioral support/goal setting. Four main themes emerged from the acceptability evaluation: perceived improvements in pain, increased self-confidence, satisfaction with 1-on-1 sessions and resources, and ease of use. All of the participants believed that VIVA was very useful and were very satisfied with the 1-on-1 sessions. Four participants found the information received very easy to practice, 4 found it easy to practice, and 1 found it somewhat difficult to practice. Five participants were satisfied with the supporting resources, and 4 were very satisfied. Potential for statistically significant improvements was observed in participants' ability to make concrete plans about when, how, where, and how often to exercise. CONCLUSION: VIVA was acceptable and usable to the participants, who perceived improvements in pain and self-confidence. IMPACT: The virtual implementation of the recommendations for the nonpharmacological management of vertebral fractures showed high acceptability and usability. Future trials will implement the recommendations on a larger scale to evaluate their effectiveness.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".