MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413536303 · doi:10.2196/71381

Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial to Promote Physical Activity Among Low-Resourced Mothers in New York City: Protocol for the Free Time for Wellness Effectiveness Trial

2025· article· en· W4413536303 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kate Magsamen‐Conrad, Kajal Gokal, Ingrid Oakley‐Girvan, Min Qian, Richard Buchsbaum, Charlene Niles, Stephanie Moshier, Andreina Martinez, A Flores, Seppo Laine, Marilisa Vega

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintCluster (spacecraft)Protocol (science)Cluster randomised controlled trialRandomized controlled trialMedicineGerontologyPsychologyPhysical therapyAlternative medicineComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is pervasive and prevalent in the United States, particularly among women of low socioeconomic position and women with children. Structural and social barriers make active leisure time a rare commodity, creating a pressing health issue because physical inactivity increases the risk of chronic diseases and poor health. OBJECTIVE: The broad objective of this study is to test the effectiveness of Free Time for Wellness, a multilevel intervention to increase physical activity among low-resourced mothers. METHODS: This study comprises a 3-arm parallel cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) with low-resourced mothers living in New York City. We will randomize fitness class sites (clusters) into arm A (contact control), receipt of free weekly fitness classes; arm B, receipt of free childcare combined with free weekly fitness classes; and arm C, receipt of free childcare combined with free weekly fitness classes and peer support activities. Over 2 years, we will recruit a pilot wave followed by 7 additional waves, totaling 720 participants into 24 fitness classes. Physical activity is the primary outcome, measured using accelerometers, but secondary outcomes also include physical activity assessed using a self-reported questionnaire and attendance data. We will assess additional secondary outcomes (eg, health status, depression, and anxiety) and mediators or moderators (eg, social support and cohesion) with a baseline and follow-up questionnaire. The intention-to-treat analysis will use linear mixed-effects models to assess the main intervention effects on physical activity outcomes and other secondary outcomes. Ethnographic methods will examine how intersecting forms of social identity shape women's experiences of physical activity and understand how real-world conditions shape the intervention implementation. RESULTS: The study received funding from the US National Institute of Health, covering the period of time from April 1, 2023, through March 31, 2028. We received initial institutional review board approval in August 2023. The study is active and recruiting participants. As of the day of manuscript submission, we have enrolled 471 participants. Data collection is anticipated to occur until September 2026 for primary completion. The estimated study completion date is December 2026. Dissemination of the results will take place with participants, community members, partners, and researchers through methods such as reports, websites, events, and academic publications and conferences. CONCLUSIONS: This cluster RCT tests whether access to childcare (an understudied structural barrier) and social support can increase physical activity. The study design and outcomes integrate ethnographic methods with a cluster RCT to better understand mechanisms and the impact of intersecting factors such as race or ethnicity, culture, gender, and socioeconomic position. The study leverages widely accessible, existing resources to promote physical activity and foster social support with the ultimate goal of assessing the effect of childcare access on parental health. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06654843; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06654843. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/71381.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.009

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.384 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→