Characteristics of the evidence on educational capacities to develop the competence of healthcare professionals about physical activity or sedentary behavior: scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this scoping review was to describe the characteristics of studies that evaluated the effectiveness of educational training to improve the professional competence of health workers on physical activity or sedentary behavior. The research question was formulated based on the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome Study anagram. Syntaxes were developed, with keywords and descriptors standardized by the Health Sciences Descriptors and Medical Subject Headings, in Portuguese, English, and Spanish, to locate experimental studies published between 2000 and 2023 in the Bireme, SciElo, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Two trained evaluators screened the studies in the stages of reading titles, abstracts, and full text in a blinded and independent manner. Thirty-one studies were eligible for data extraction. Most of the studies were published between 2013 and 2021 (77%) and conducted in countries such as Brazil, the United States of America, and Canada (61%). When analyzing the outcomes of the findings, it was observed that there was an increase in confidence (n=8), knowledge (n=7), ability (n=3) and attitude (n=5) of health professionals to advise on physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior. Therefore, the recommended follow-up for constructing interventions on the subject are training courses with their content distributed in up to five modules, which allow participants to practice what was learned, with an average duration of the educational training courses of six hours (6.34 ± 8.5) and preferably with pre, post and maintenance assessments. Future studies could offer hybrid training courses, made available to all categories in the health area and describe the training courses in their entirety só that they are replicable and reproducible.
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 | 0.052 | 0.254 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.041 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".