A randomized pragmatic feasibility trial to promote student perspective-taking on client physical activity level: a collaborative project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health-care practitioners have opportunities to talk with clients about unhealthy behaviors. How practitioners approach these conversations involves skill to be effective. Thus, teaching health-care students to communicate empathetically with clients should promote effective client-practitioner conversations about health behavior change. The primary objective of this pilot trial was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of a theoretically informed intervention designed to improve perspective-taking. METHODS: For inclusion in this randomized mixed-methods parallel two-arm trial, participants needed to be a student at the investigators' Canadian university and have completed course content on behavior change communication. Using a 1:1 allocation ratio, participants in Respiratory, Physical, and Occupational Therapy; Nurse Practitioner; and Kinesiology programs were randomly assigned to full or partial intervention conditions. Full intervention participants completed a perspective-taking workshop and practiced perspective-taking prior to an in-lab dialogue with a client-actor (masked to condition) about physical activity. Partial intervention participants received the workshop after the dialogue. We assessed feasibility and appropriateness by comparing recruitment rates, protocol, and psychometric outcomes to criteria. We assessed acceptability (secondary outcome) by analyzing exit interviews. RESULTS: We screened and randomized 163 participants (82 = full intervention; 81 = partial intervention). We fell slightly short of our recruitment success criteria (10-15 participants per program) when 2/50 Occupational Therapy students participated. We met some but not all of our protocol criteria: Some full intervention participants did not practice perspective-taking before the dialogue, because they did not see anyone during the practice period or did not have a practice opportunity. Psychometric outcomes met the criteria, except for one measure that demonstrated ceiling effects and low reliability (Cronbach's alpha < .70). There were no adverse events related to participation. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention should be largely feasible, appropriate, and acceptable to deliver. We suggest changes that are large enough to warrant conducting another pilot study. We outline recommended improvements that are applicable to researchers and educators interested in recruitment, adherence to home practice, and online uptake of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered retrospectively on November 8, 2023, at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06123507 .
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".