Identifying Barriers and Motivators to Exercise for Middle-Aged Adults at UBC
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Chronic diseases are one of the leading causes of death worldwide (Deering et al., 2009), and many are preventable by addressing and mitigating risk factors, such as tobacco use, raised blood pressure, unhealthy diet, and physical activity (Government of Canada, 2015). However, less than 20% of adults in Canada meet the recommended amount of physical activity (Statistics Canada, 2019), suggesting a need for increased exercise programming in order to improve the health of adults. UBC has several initiatives and programs to address this prevalent issue, such as Bodyworks, an evidence-based organization that strives to enhance wellbeing and fitness (Faculty of Education School of Kinesiology, n.d.). However, this organization has largely focused on programming for older adults, with limited engagement from community members aged 40 to 60 (Bundon, 2021). Therefore, this study aimed to engage with UBC community members 40 to 60 years of age with at least one risk factor for chronic disease, to learn about their experiences, behaviours, and perceptions of physical activity, in order to develop recommendations for future programming to be offered by BodyWorks. This study employed a mixed-methods approach by conducting a survey comprised of Likert-type, multiple-choice, and open-ended questions pertaining to demographics, motivators and barriers to exercise participation, awareness and perception of BodyWorks, and preferred exercise type and delivery. Over the course of three weeks, researchers collected data from 44 participants between the ages of 41 and 60. The results indicate that the population’s most prevalent barriers to participation are: a lack of time and a range of health concerns, such as fear of injury and limited physical abilities. However, participants also reported positive associations with exercise, enjoying exercise as a means to manage stress, increase energy levels, and socialize. The results also suggest that BodyWorks has a mixed reputation among the sample. Some participants feel their programs and equipment are outdated and only worthwhile for seniors, while other participants had never heard of the organization, or attended any of their classes. Furthermore, participants were asked to provide examples of fitness programs they would enjoy or participate in. The most common suggestions included condition-specific programs (where participants have similar needs and goals), classes set to music (such as dance fitness, Zumba, or yoga programs), and tiered, beginner programs (where participants can gain confidence using gym equipment and are provided the opportunity to progress to more advanced classes). Based on these findings, 5 recommendations are suggested to BodyWorks in order to best engage with this population. 1) Partner with other UBC organizations. 2) Develop a website separate from the UBC School of Kinesiology. 3) Use social media to advertise programs and educate the public. 4) Update facility and equipment for enhanced functionality and enjoyment. 5) Develop new programming in line with participant suggestions. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».