MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407051373 · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2025.01.468

Psychosocial Responses to a Cardiovascular Exercise Randomized Controlled Trial: Does Intensity Matter for Individuals Post-stroke?

2025· article· en· W4407051373 on OpenAlexafffund
Lynden Rodrigues, Kevin Moncion, Sotiria Anna Angelopolous, Bernat de las Heras, Shane N. Sweet, Janice J. Eng, Joyce Fung, Marilyn MacKay-Lyons, Ada Tang, Marc Roig

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationMcMaster UniversityJewish Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialPsychosocialStroke (engine)Physical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effect of cardiovascular high-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on psychosocial responses to exercise, motivation, and enjoyment, in individuals with chronic stroke. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of motivation and enjoyment outcomes collected from a randomized controlled trial (NCT03614585) comparing 12 weeks of HIIT vs MICT in participants with chronic stroke (6-60mo post-stroke) was conducted. SETTING: General community. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-one individuals (N=71) with chronic stroke (mean ± SD, age: 65.5 ± 8.4y, 19.4 ± 13.4mo post-stroke, 38% women) and mild disability (median ± interquartile range, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 1 ± 2). INTERVENTIONS: Twelve-week, 3 per week progressive cardiovascular HIIT or MICT program conducted on NuStep recumbent steppers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Motivation (Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3) was measured at weeks 1, 6, and 12. Enjoyment outcomes comprised of affective response (Feeling Scale) assessed at each training session, and post-exercise enjoyment (Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale) assessed at weeks 6 and 12. Linear mixed models, examining group, time and group × time point interactions in motivation constructs and composite scores, mean affective response per session, and post-exercise enjoyment were used to compare the effect of HIIT vs MICT. RESULTS: HIIT elicited a lower affective response (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.18 [-1.90 to -0.47]; P=.002), that also progressively declined during sessions, in contrast to MICT (group × time point interaction: F [2,63.5]=3.99, P=.02). HIIT and MICT did not elicit any significant difference between groups or change over time for post-exercise enjoyment or any motivation constructs (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite lower affective response during exercise, HIIT elicits equivalent motivation and post-exercise enjoyment compared to MICT. This study provides further support for the implementation of HIIT in stroke rehabilitation by demonstrating sustained responses of motivation and post-enjoyment. Future studies should consider potential strategies that positively reinforce these important psychosocial responses to implement HIIT in post-stroke rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→