MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392518216 · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05141-7

The co-development and evaluation of an e-learning course on spinal cord injury physical activity counselling: a randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4392518216 on OpenAlexafffund
Femke Hoekstra, Heather L. Gainforth, Rogier Broeksteeg, Stephanie Corras, Delaney Collins, Electra Eleftheriadou, Sonja Gaudet, Emily E. Giroux, Laura S. Kuipers, Shannon McCallum, K. Jasmin, Erica de Passillé, Diane Rakiecki, Shannon Rockall, Rita J. G. van den Berg-Emons, Anniek van Vilsteren, Megan Williamson, Jereme Wilroy, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCommunity Based Research CentrePraxis Spinal Cord InstituteDalhousie UniversityHorizon Health NetworkGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreSt. Lawrence CollegeUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesSpinal Cord Injury BCQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusResearch CanadaOkanagan CollegeKelowna General Hospital
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCCraig H. Neilsen Foundation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)UsabilityMedicineMedical educationConversationBest practicePhysical therapyPsychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health, fitness and lifestyle professionals can play important roles in promoting physical activity in groups at risk of developing an inactive lifestyle, such as people with spinal cord injury (SCI). Tailored counselling is a promising tool to promote and improve physical activity levels. To support professionals to effectively have a conversation about physical activity with clients with SCI, evidence-based training and resources are needed. This project aimed to (1) co-develop an e-learning course on best practices for SCI physical activity counselling and, (2) examine the effectiveness and usability of this course. METHODS: Guided by the technology-enhanced learning (TEL) evaluation framework, we used a systematic, multistep approach to co-develop and evaluate an e-learning course. The development process was informed by input and feedback from a diverse group of end-users and experts (n > 160) via online surveys and (think-aloud) interviews. A randomized controlled trial was used to compare learning outcomes (post-knowledge and self-efficacy) between participants who completed the course (intervention group) and the wait-listed control group. Usability, learning experiences, and satisfaction were assessed among all participants. RESULTS: Forty-one participants (21 intervention-group; 20 control-group) with various backgrounds (e.g., lifestyle counsellors, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, recreation therapists, fitness trainers) enrolled in the randomized controlled trial. After completing the course, participants in the intervention group showed significantly improved knowledge on the best practices for SCI physical activity counselling and higher self-efficacy for using these best practices in conversations with clients with SCI compared to the control group (p <.001). Participants reported above average usability scores, positive learning experiences, and high levels of satisfaction when completing the course. CONCLUSION: We used a systematic, multi-step, theory-informed approach to co-develop and evaluate an evidence-based e-learning course on SCI physical activity counselling to support professionals to promote physical activity in their daily practices. The overall positive findings demonstrate that the e-learning course is feasible and ready for further implementation in various health and community settings. Implementation of the e-learning course can help professionals improve the physical activity support they provide to their clients, and subsequently increase physical activity participation in people with SCI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.425 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical EducationSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207