Evaluating the uptake of Canada’s new physical activity and sedentary behavior guidelines on service organizations’ websites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New evidence-based physical activity and sedentary behavior guidelines for Canadians were launched in 2011. As a consequence, service organizations that promote physical activity directly to the public needed to change their promotion materials to reflect the new guidelines. Little is known about the rate at which service organizations adopt and integrate new evidence-based guidelines and determinants of guideline adoption. In this natural observational study, we evaluated the rate of online adoption of the new guidelines among key service organizations that promote physical activity and examined participation in a booster webinar as a supplemental dissemination strategy. One hundred fifty nine service organization websites were coded by one of six raters prior to the release of the new guidelines as well as at 3, 6, and 9 months after the release. Online adoption of the guidelines increased during the coding period with 51 % of organizations posting the guidelines or related information on their websites. Organizations' engagement in a webinar was associated with their adoption of the guidelines. The release of new Canadian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines led to increased guideline adoption on service organizations' websites. However, adoption was not universal. In order for the uptake of the new guidelines to be successful, further efforts need to be taken to ensure that service organizations present physical activity guidelines on their websites. Comprehensive, active dissemination strategies tailored to address organizational barriers are needed to ensure online guideline adoption.
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 | 0.016 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".