A behaviour change intervention promoting physical activity following dysvascular amputation: Protocol for a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes-related lower limb amputation (LLA) is a leading cause of disability globally, impacting individuals' physical and mental health, and ultimately their quality of life. Physical activity can reduce risk of chronic disease and mortality while improving quality of life. However, people with LLA often have reduced balance and walking ability resulting in sedentary behaviour. We co-created a physical activity intervention, IMproving Physical Activity through Coaching and Technology following Lower Limb Loss (IMPACT-L3), to support physical activity behaviour change in people with dysvasular LLA. To date, no studies have assessed a peer-led physical activity behaviour change intervention for people with LLA. Prior to launching a large trial, a pilot study is required to assess feasibility and optimize design of a future trial. METHODS: This pilot study is a parallel group randomized controlled trial (RCT) with an embedded qualitative component. The intervention group will have access to once-weekly virtual peer coaching sessions with a peer trained in brief action planning; web-based physical activity modules; and a wearable activity monitor for 8 weeks. The control group will continue usual care and be offered the intervention at the end of the follow-up period. Data on feasibility will be collected including assessment of process, resource, management and treatment indicators. The proposed primary outcomes will be measured at baseline, post-intervention and one month later: total physical activity counts per day measured by the ActiGraphTM activity monitor and self-efficacy measured by the Self-efficacy for Exercise scale. Secondary measures include patient reported outcome measures of physical activity, mobility, depression, social participation, balance confidence and quality of life. Semi-structured interviews will explore feasibility and acceptability of the intervention to participants and peers. DISCUSSION: This study will inform the design of a definitive RCT to determine the effectiveness of a peer-led physical activity intervention for people with dysvascular LLA.
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 | 0.038 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.016 |
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".