Effects of a dog activity tracker on owners’ walking: a community-based randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A promising strategy to increase population physical activity is through promotion of dog walking. Informed by multi-process action control and nascent dog-walking theory, we examined the effectiveness of a 3-month technology-based (dog tracker) 2-arm randomised controlled dog-walking intervention to increase dog-owner daily physical activity in the general community in Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: 37 participants were allocated to the intervention group (mean age = 43.2 [SD 11.9]) and 40 to the control group (mean age = 42.3 [SD 11.9]). Both groups averaged more than 10,500 steps/day at baseline. There was no evidence of within- or between-group physical activity differences across timepoints. The results remained consistent after exclusion of participants who had data collected during COVID-19 lockdowns. Compared with baseline, both groups had significant increases in sedentary time during the post-intervention, and 6 month follow-up. The absence of significant differences between-group physical activity differences may be attributable to the ceiling effect of both groups already being sufficiently active. These results provide useful guidance to future studies intended to assess the efficacy of technology-based dog-walking interventions. Future dog-walking interventions should specifically target physically inactive dog owners. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12619001391167 (10/10/2019); Retrospectively registered.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".