Feasibility and Acceptability of a Physical Activity Group Program Using telerehabilitation during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Multiple early Intervention for Psychosis Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although physical activity (PA) is beneficial to young people with early psychosis (YEP) to improve physical health and psychiatric symptoms, few YEP initiate and maintain PA. The sports group interventions offered in early psychosis services had to be suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Telehealth has shown promising results in different fields of health services including for patients with mental health disorders. METHODS: Descriptive retrospective study aiming to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a telekinesiology intervention among YEP and to describe its multicenter implementation. The PA sessions were delivered to YEP by a kinesiologist and peer support workers. Feasibility was measured by the number of programs approached which referred participants, and the proportion of referred YEP who participated to at least one PA session. Acceptability was measured by the proportion of participants who attended more than one PA session, the number of sessions attended per participant and by surveys on patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Of the 35 clinics approached, 150 YEP (of 214 referred) from 13 clinics participated to at least one of the 204 telekinesiology sessions (offered 2-3 times/week from May 2020 to May 2022) The mean number per participant was 5.5 sessions. 106 YEP engaged in more than one session (mean of 7.3 sessions per persistent participant). The mean number of participants per session was 4 (1-12). 99 % of the survey respondents were very satisfied/or satisfied with the sessions. CONCLUSION: Telekinesiology appears to be an acceptable and feasible option to be implemented simultaneously in multiple early intervention services.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".