Cardiorespiratory exercise and self-management early after stroke to increase daily physical activity: results from a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Trial design Stepped-wedge cluster superiority randomized controlled trial. Objective This study aimed to determine if Promoting Optimal Physical Exercise for Life (PROPEL) program increases participation in physical activity up to six months post-discharge from stroke rehabilitation, compared to participation in group cardiorespiratory exercise (GCE) alone. Methods People with sub-acute stroke participated in the PROPEL (n=107) or GCE (n=65) intervention phases. The primary outcome was adherence to physical activity guidelines over seven days at six months post-discharge from rehabilitation. Secondary outcomes were exercise self-efficacy (Short Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale), exercise-related beliefs and attitudes (Short Outcome Expectation for Exercise scale), and perceived barriers to physical activity (Barriers to Being Active Quiz). Results Fifty seven participants (PROPEL, n=29; GCE, n=28) were included in the analysis. At six months post-discharge, 6/17 PROPEL participants and 9/22 GCE participants met the guidelines for intensity and duration of physical activity; the odds of meeting the physical activity guidelines did not differ between phases (p>0.84). PROPEL participants reported higher self-efficacy for exercise than GCE participants (p=0.0047). Conclusions Participation in the PROPEL increases self-efficacy for exercise compared to GCE alone after stroke. However, increased self-efficacy for exercise did not increase the odds of meeting physical activity guidelines. Trial registration NCT02951338
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".