Participatory Action Research With individuals Who Have a Moderate To Severe Traumatic Brain injury : The Process of Co-Creating a Peer-Run Physical Activity Program in The Community
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Physical activity (PA) and sport are suggested as a non-stigmatizing approaches to address long-term problems following moderate and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and can positively influence community integration, mood, and quality of life. However, promoting PA and sport participation for people with TBI is challenging due to long-term sequelae associated with their injuries. Consequently, PA and sport programs must be appropriately designed. This project aims to pursue the co-creation of a community-based PA and sport program for persons with TBI and stems from a pilot program that began in January 2017 in collaboration with multiple organizational partners. The program consists of three phases (i.e., learning how to train safely, independently and for a triathlon event). Four individuals with TBI from the pilot program are currently peer mentors and share their perspectives, motivate new members and assist with the development of the project as key stakeholders. To facilitate the implementation, evaluation and sustainability of the program, formal procedures and toolkits must be co-created with researchers and stakeholders to ensure the content is tailored to the program usersu2019 needs.Objectives: 1) explore the impact of the current program on mentors, participants, and administration to inform the creation process of the new program; 2) co-construct the programu2019s logic model while identifying strategies to ensure program sustainability with the community fitness center; 3) co-create a set of clearly-defined protocols for the new peer mentor program.Design: An embedded mixed-method design will be used in which supplemental qualitative data will be collected to enhance the development of the program protocol. This design incorporates participant perceptions and experiences of the program before, during and after primary measures are administered to support aspects of the overall application and evaluation of the program.Participants: A heterogeneous convenience sample of 20 community-dwelling, adult participants (4 peer mentors, 16 active participants) with severe TBI in Eastern Canada have been purposely recruited based on their suitability for the program.Methods: In line with the participatory action research approach, there will be equitable collaboration among organizational representatives (n=3), a team of multidisciplinary researchers (n=5) and community members (mentors, n=4) in every aspect of the research process. Through an iterative process, regular scheduled sessions will take place with working group teams to clearly inform a logic model describing the necessary inputs, key components, and expected outputs of the program to facilitate the development of the programu2019s protocols.Significance: This presentation will share the process of co-creating a study protocol for this innovative community based research program with multiple stakeholders. The results will further our understanding about the factors that promote PA and sport participation for adults with moderate to severe TBI and make recommendations about working with this community.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».