Examining Physical Activity Service Provision to Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Communities in Australia: A Qualitative Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strong evidence exists for the role of physical activity in preventing and managing a range of chronic health conditions. A particular challenge in promoting physical activity as a health strategy exists in culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups, as such groups demonstrate high risk for a range of non-communicable diseases. The aim of this research was to examine the perspective of multicultural health service providers for CALD groups with respect to the physical activity services/initiatives on offer, access barriers to these services, and ideas for future service delivery in this area. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 multicultural health service providers across the capital cities of the three most populous states in Australia (New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria), and thematic content analysis was used to examine the data. Findings indicated that the majority of physical activity initiatives were associated with organizations offering other social services for CALD communities but were greatly restrained by resources. As well, it was found that most services were not designed by taking into account specific cultural requirements for CALD communities or their cultural expectations. Common barriers identified to service uptake were classified as socio-cultural (e.g., gender, language, context of health) and environmental (e.g., transportation) in nature. These findings should be utilized when planning future physical activity and health promotion initiatives for increasing CALD participation. In particular, programs need to be culturally tailored to the specific expectations of CALD groups, addressing cultural safety and sensitivity, and should be in partnership with other organizations to extend the reach and capacity.
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 | 0.028 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".