A Randomized Controlled Trial to Examine the Relationship Between Peer Mentoring for Physical Activity and Cardiometabolic Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Studies examining the effect of peer mentoring on physical activity levels have been conducted in mostly elderly and young populations, and the results have been inconsistent. This study examined the impact of one-on-one peer mentoring on physical activity and cardiometabolic parameters in urban adults. Methods: The study participants were 353 overweight or obese adults residing in Abuja, Nigeria. They were randomized into two groups, peer-mentored (n = 128) and a control (n = 225) group. All the participants received nutritional counseling and were invited to attend instructor-led physical activity sessions each week for six months. Differences in the frequency, duration, and intensity of physical activity and cardiometabolic parameters, including body fat, muscle mass and lipids, were evaluated within and between the groups with t and rank sum tests. Results: At the end of the study period, the average time spent on physical activity increased significantly by 14% (p = 0.006), and the average time spent on vigorous physical activity increased by 99% (p = 0.003) compared to baseline for participants in the peer-mentored group. For those in the control group, the average time spent on physical activity decreased significantly by 7% (p = 0.03), while the average time spent on vigorous physical activity increased by 30%, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.34). In both groups, there were significant improvements in the total cholesterol, low- and high-density lipoproteins and triglycerides levels, at the end of the study period, compared to baseline. Conclusions: In these overweight or obese adults, we observed that peer mentoring was positively associated with increased physical activity. Peer mentoring also holds great promise for improving cardiometabolic health and promoting a healthy lifestyle in adults.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".