Impacting the physical activity confidence of children with medical conditions or disabilities: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Youth with medical conditions or disabilities (MCD) seldom achieve healthy physical activity recommendations. Barriers include a perceived lack of competence, fear of pain/symptom exacerbation, or physical function changes. A 12-week intervention targeting physical activity confidence was evaluated among youth with MCD. Methods: This three-arm randomized controlled trial (in-person/virtual/control) enrolled youth (8 to 18 years) requiring ongoing medical care from tertiary paediatric clinics. Readiness Ruler (motivation ≥4/10, confidence ≤8/10) determined eligibility. Blinded assessments (0, 3, and 6 months) were total motivation/confidence (Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy), physical activity (7-day accelerometry), screen time, and sleep behaviours. Intervention (2 h × 12 weeks, in-person or virtual) combined game/sport skills with activity participation and education. Results: Sixty-three youth (of 111 randomized) with baseline total motivation/confidence below recommended levels among 31 children and 32 adolescents (51% male, mean age 13.1 ± 3.0 years). In a model adjusted for age and baseline confidence, activity confidence at 3 months was higher among in-person intervention participants compared with control participants (beta = 1.7 [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.3, 3.1], P = 0.02). Higher confidence was associated with higher physical activity (r = 0.30; P = 0.01) and decreased sedentary time (r = 0.74; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Youth who were confident were more likely to engage in physical activity. The in-person intervention increased participants' activity confidence. The limited impact of the virtual format suggests that implementing new skills with peers is critically important for enhancing activity confidence. Further research is required to evaluate whether confidence gains could be sustained beyond the study intervention, would longitudinally increase activity participation over time, or would transfer to other activity settings. Clinical trial registration: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04106154).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".