MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7070679330

Reading Into physical activity: exploring relationships between health literacy and physical activity in the community : Study 1: Health literacy, physical activity & the theory of planned behaviour ; Study 2: Creating an active community using collaborative action research methods.

2012· dissertation· en· W7070679330 sur OpenAlexfundno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2012
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePhysical Activity and Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesUniversity of Victoria
Mots-clésTheory of planned behaviorPhysical activityFocus groupModerationFeelingHealth literacyExploratory researchPsychological interventionHealth promotionReading (process)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The focus of this research relates to physical activity (PA) among populations at risk for inactivity. Two studies were completed. Study 1 was an exploratory study examining the relationship between health literacy (HL) and PA as they relate to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) constructs. Study 2 was an action research-based project in partnership with the staff and students of an alternative school. In Study 1 participants (N=65) completed measurements including the REALM to assess HL, and accelerometers to establish PA levels. The results of this study showed that even after controlling for covariates HL and PA are significantly linked (r = 0.37, p < 0.01), however, the TPB constructs were not found to mediate this relationship. However, Perceived Behavioural Control (r = 0.29, p < 0.05) and Intention to Exercise (r = 0.29, p < 0.05) were significantly linked to HL. Of particular interest, Difficulty Reading was cited as a significant barrier to PA for those with lower levels of HL (r = 0.37, p < 0.01). Finally, HL was found to be a significant moderator of the Education-PA relationship. Study 2 contained two components. First, focus groups with community partner organization (CPO) members to establish issues of relevance to them related to PA, to gather suggestions for incorporating PA into CPO programs, to gain an understanding of the barriers experienced by the community members, and to receive input regarding their current feelings and knowledge surrounding PA. Second, a process evaluation was conducted with administration to gauge how the CPO had progressed over the first academic year, using the TRACE process evaluation tool. The findings from the focus groups were organized by socio ecological level into PA facilitators and inhibitors, and were used to plan a new PA program for the school year. A repeated measures survey and process evaluation tool were used to assess these program objectives for the initial year. Perceived HL scores increased from baseline (M = 20.71,SD = 4.29) to follow-up (M = 22.58, SD = 5.15 ); t(-2.44), p < 0.05, as did perceived understanding of the importance of PA from September (M = 4.46 , SD = 1.60) to June (M = 5.54 , SD = 1.67); t(-3.06), p < 0.01. There was an increase in total minutes of MVPA among students as well, although this trend merely approached significance, from September (M = 526.60, SD = 557.63) to June (M=817.0, SD = 674.69), t(-1.97), p = 0.06. The evaluation tool revealed that the community was “Half Way There”, and identified areas where improvements could be made. These findings are relevant to creating equitable and comprehensive promotion and education of physical activity in the future and to understanding the mechanisms involved in PA disparities. These findings also support the need for health promoters and researchers to work with communities known to be at risk for low HL, and using action research methods to create locally relevant program development and research.

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)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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 Opus0,337
Tête enseignante GPT0,513
Écart entre enseignants0,177 · 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'étudeQualitatif
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
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Même sujetPhysical Activity and HealthTravaux en français237 207