Osteoarthritis physical activity care pathway: Results of an exploratory trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To conduct an exploratory randomized controlled trial of a physical activity intervention for individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) involving telephone-delivered coaching, activity self-monitoring, and connection with resources to support activity (Osteoarthritis Physical Activity Care Pathway; OA-PCP). Methods: Older adults (age ≥65 years) with symptomatic hip or knee OA and comorbid health conditions (N = 240) were randomized to OA-PCP or an attention control (AC) condition. OA-PCP included coaching calls at baseline and at 3-month intervals through 12 months, as well as email-delivered content. The ACgroup received calls and emails focused on OA education. The primary outcome was minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week, measured at baseline, 6-months and 12-months via accelerometer. Secondary outcomes included other physical activity metrics and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and function subscales. Linear mixed regression was used to estimate between-group differences from baseline to follow-up time points. Results: At 6-month and 12-month follow-up, the changes in weekly MVPA favored the OA-PCP by 9.5 min (95 % Confidence Interval -6.7, 25.8; p = 0.252) and 12.3 min (95 % Confidence Interval -3.8, 28.4; p = 0.136), respectively, but differences were not statistically or clinically significant. There were no significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes other than steps per day at 12-months. Conclusions: A more intensive intervention approach may be needed to enhance physical activity among older adults with OA and comorbid health conditions.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".