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) in Canada. Implementation is an ongoing challenge. Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel, online, physical activity (PA) intervention for youth with DS. Methods: Study 1: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with end-users to evaluate an existing alpha-intervention and inform intervention changes. Study 2: This study was a randomized, feasibility pilot trial of a 10-week, online, PA beta-intervention designed using the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework with a waitlist control. Youth aged 19-30 with mild to moderate DS not meeting Canada PA guidelines were recruited via community clinics and social media. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate, retention rate, and acceptability. Planned analyses included a qualitative thematic analysis, frequency counts and multiple one-way, between-groups ANCOVAs. Results: Study 1: Thematic analysis of seven participants’ interview data determined good initial acceptability, demand, and practicality. Five change ideas were integrated within a beta-intervention for trial. Study 2: Low rates of recruitment (N= 26, 21.7% total; 3.8% clinical), retention (n= 16, 61.5%), and acceptability (n= 11, 64.0%) were found. 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. Conclusions: Despite initial evidence of acceptability and demand, this trial is not recommended for RCT; rather further pilot research is required including active control group(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 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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".