Acceptability of Online Yoga Among Individuals With Chronic Conditions and Their Caregivers: Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The online delivery of yoga interventions rapidly expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic, and preliminary studies indicate that online yoga is feasible across multiple chronic conditions. However, few yoga studies provide synchronous online yoga sessions and rarely target the caregiving dyad. Online chronic disease management interventions have been evaluated across conditions, life spans, and diverse samples. However, the perceived acceptability of online yoga, including self-reported satisfaction and online delivery preferences, is underexplored among individuals with chronic conditions and their caregivers. Understanding user preferences is essential for successful and safe online yoga implementation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to qualitatively examine the perceived acceptability of online yoga among individuals with chronic conditions and their caregivers who participated in an online dyadic intervention that merged yoga and self-management education to develop skills (MY-Skills) to manage persistent pain. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study among 9 dyads (>18 years of age; individuals experiencing persistent moderate pain) who participated in MY-Skills online during the COVID-19 pandemic. The intervention consisted of 16 online, synchronous yoga sessions over 8 weeks for both dyad members. After the completion of the intervention, participants (N=18) participated in semistructured telephone interviews for around 20 minutes, discussing their preferences, challenges, and recommendations for improved online delivery. Interviews were analyzed by using a rapid analytic approach. RESULTS: MY-Skills participants were, on average, aged 62.7 (SD 19) years; were primarily women; were primarily White; and had a mean of 5.5 (SD 3) chronic conditions. Both participants and caregivers reported moderate pain severity scores (mean 6.02, SD 1.3) on the Brief Pain Inventory. The following three themes were identified related to online delivery: (1) participants indicated a preference for the intervention to be in person rather than online because they were distracted in the home setting, because they felt that in-person yoga would be more engaging, because the yoga therapist could physically correct positions, and because of safety concerns (eg, fear of falling); (2) participants indicated good acceptability of online MY-Skills delivery due to convenience, access, and comfort with being in their home; and (3) recommendations for improving online delivery highlighted a need for additional and accessible technical support. CONCLUSIONS: Both individuals with chronic conditions and their caregivers find online yoga to be an acceptable intervention. Participants who preferred in-person yoga did so due to distractions in the home and group dynamics. Some participants preferred in-person corrections to ensure correct positioning, while others felt safe with verbal modifications in their homes. Convenience and access were the primary reasons for preferring online delivery. To improve online delivery, future yoga studies should include specific activities for fostering group engagement, enhancing safety protocols, and increasing technical support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03440320; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03440320.
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 | 0,007 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».