MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6923408206 · doi:10.14288/1.0421540

An Evaluation of Student Awareness and Participation in the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines at UBC

2022· article· en· W6923408206 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePhysical Activity and Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhysical activityDescriptive statisticsMovement (music)Descriptive researchMEDLINE

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In 2020, the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP) published the first official 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for adults aged 18-64. These guidelines were the first integrated and comprehensive approach to health, which offered evidence-based recommendations for physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep (Ross et al., 2020). Its release aims to address the unhealthy lifestyles of adults, which are especially prevalent amongst young college students and often lead to health implications later in life (Lawrence et al., 2017). However, there has been limited assessment of awareness amongst students. Therefore, more research assessing awareness in students is critical in determining approaches to improve participation in the guidelines. The purpose of our study was to assess student awareness and participation in the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines at UBC Vancouver. Through our assessment, we hoped to offer practical strategies to raise awareness, increase participation, and identify any barriers/facilitators to meeting the recommended movement guidelines, to ultimately improve overall health and well-being for UBC students. Our study assessed 44 undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia Vancouver Campus (UBCV) between the ages of 16 and 25 years of age. Data was collected through a Qualtrics survey that included multiple-choice, Likert-type scale, and short answer-type questions. Analysis of our results through frequency tables and descriptive statistics revealed that participants were least aware of sedentary behaviour guidelines but adhered least to moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Additionally, awareness and adherence was overall lower in students who were not in the School of Kinesiology. The majority of participants agreed that increased awareness of the guidelines would encourage them to change their daily life behaviors, noting that knowledge of the potential health benefits of the recommendations would help encouragement, as well as family and friends. Barriers to engagement in the components of the guidelines included lack of time, studying, lack of motivation, laziness, and recommended that awareness of and adherence to guidelines by students would increase by sharing more information on larger platforms, and having more events and challenges with monetary incentives for participation. Throughout our findings, we were able to recommend three strategies to campus partners in order to address lack of awareness regarding the guidelines. Our first short term recommendation includes focusing awareness of sedentary behavior through investing in supportive infrastructure and increasing posters around campus. Our second recommendation is to partner with and expand the Move U crew to help reach the wider UBC student population and to communicate knowledge of the guidelines during their movement breaks. Our long term recommendation is creation of an online platform that allows users to complete health challenges and quizzes about the guidelines, while being incentivized through discounts and coupons for on campus food. Ultimately, our aim is to provide research on the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines on campus in order to assist in helpful practical recommendations for UBC partners and to highlight the need for increased research in this area. 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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,268
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,540

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0020,000
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,091
Tête enseignante GPT0,335
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Même sujetPhysical Activity and Health→Travaux en français237 207→