Adult Women's Perceived Facilitators, Barriers, and Health Benefits of Sustaining a Membership in a Commercial Fitness Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to gain in depth knowledge on the perceived facilitators, barriers, and health benefits of sustaining a membership in a commercial fitness facility (CFF) amongst active and less active adult women between the ages 35 – 55.\nMethod: This qualitative focus group study segmented participants into those who met Canada’s physical activity (PA) guidelines of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous PA and those who do not. Inductive analysis of the focus group data was carried out after deductively creating codes. Measures were incorporated throughout the study to ensure data trustworthiness.\nResults: The analysis led to the creation of barrier-related themes. Less active women desired a more welcoming and friendly staff and environment, and wanted more support to facilitate sustained membership, than did active women. Active women had one less barrier than less active women. Less active women perceived there was a lack of support and programs for their current ability level, and active participants seldom mentioned this barrier. Both groups shared similar perceived health benefits to the CFF membership in comparison to other forms of exercise and venues for PA, and the active women cited one additional benefit than did the less active women.\nConclusions: Health was an important facilitator and benefit to using a CFF membership for the women of this study. Less active women identified that the CFF environment needs to be more supportive and welcoming in order to minimize barriers and facilitate membership. A less intimidating environment and more access to professional support without additional cost would make the CFF space more favourable for the women of this study. Recommendations from the findings of the current study are presented and directions for further research are provided.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".