A Feasibility Study Evaluating an Online Physical Activity Intervention for Young Adults with Low Mood and/or Depression Engaged in Community Primary Clinical Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise is now recommended as a frontline treatment for depression (DS) \nin Canada. Implementation is an ongoing challenge. \nPurpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel, online, physical \nactivity (PA) intervention for youth with DS. \nMethods: Study 1: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with end-users to \nevaluate an existing alpha-intervention and inform intervention changes. Study 2: This \nstudy was a randomized, feasibility pilot trial of a 10-week, online, PA beta-intervention \ndesigned using the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework with a waitlist \ncontrol. Youth aged 19-30 with mild to moderate DS not meeting Canada PA guidelines \nwere recruited via community clinics and social media. Primary feasibility outcomes \nwere recruitment rate, retention rate, and acceptability. Planned analyses included a \nqualitative thematic analysis, frequency counts and multiple one-way, between-groups \nANCOVAs. \nResults: Study 1: Thematic analysis of seven participants’ interview data determined \ngood initial acceptability, demand, and practicality. Five change ideas were integrated \nwithin a beta-intervention for trial. Study 2: Low rates of recruitment (N= 26, 21.7% \ntotal; 3.8% clinical), retention (n= 16, 61.5%), and acceptability (n= 11, 64.0%) were \nfound. Secondary outcomes of PA (partial eta squared = 0.55) and DS (partial eta squared = 0.18), as well as tertiary M PAC behaviour variables: behaviour regulation (partial eta squared = 0.46) and identity (partial eta squared = 0.20), all favored the intervention group. \nConclusions: Despite initial evidence of acceptability and demand, this trial is not \nrecommended for RCT; rather further pilot research is required including active control \ngroup(s) and multi-site approaches to bolster recruitment
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".