Exercise referral schemes increase Patients’ cardiorespiratory Endurance: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of exercise referral schemes (ERS) involving primary care providers to an exercise specialist on patients’ physical activity is uncertain and primarily based on self-report outcomes. Cardiorespiratory endurance carries clinically relevant information and is an objective outcome measure that has been used to evaluate ERS, but this literature has not been amalgamated. We determined the effectiveness of ERS involving qualified exercise professionals (QEPs) on patients’ cardiorespiratory endurance. A systematic review with between-group and within-group meta-analyses was performed to examine the effects of ERS on cardiorespiratory endurance. We searched Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Academic Search Premier databases from their inception to February 2023 to find ERS interventions (randomized/non-randomized, controlled/non-controlled). To be included, studies required an adult patient referral from a primary care provider to a QEP. Twenty-nine articles comprising 6326 (3684 females) unique patients were included. Patients were primarily older (62 ± 9 years; range: 48–82) and overweight (body mass index: 28.9 ± 7.5 kg/m2; range: 22.5–37.1). Improvements in patients’ cardiorespiratory endurance were observed in 20 of the 29 studies. Among controlled studies (n = 14), the meta-analysis exhibited a favorable effect on cardiorespiratory endurance between the intervention and the comparator groups (Hedge’s g: 0.31, 95 % CI: 0.09 to 0.52). The ERS interventions also improved cardiorespiratory endurance when comparing pre- and post-intervention effects (all studies, Cohen’s d: 0.57, 95 % CI: 0.45 to 0.69). ERS that incorporate a QEP lead to improvements in patients’ cardiorespiratory endurance, providing support for the creation of these programs to help patients lead healthier lifestyles.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".