A qualitative examination of the impact of microgrants to promote physical activity among adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microgrants are a mechanism for providing funding to community organizations or groups to support health initiatives. Little research to date has examined the use of microgrants in promoting physical activity (PA), and no studies have explored how microgrants may support PA promotion among adolescents. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of microgrants in enhancing PA opportunities for Canadian adolescents. METHODS: Employing a case study approach, nine community organizations from across Canada were selected as cases providing sports and physical activities with the support of microgrant funding. Researchers visited each organization and conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 program participants (12-25 years of age, M = 16.3, SD = 2.6) and 17 adult organizers/instructors (23-57 years of age, M = 37.4, SD = 10.0). Interview transcripts were inductively and deductively coded to identify concepts and create a hierarchy of themes. RESULTS: Analysis produced themes regarding participants' perceptions of the Funding, Running Programs and Events, the Impact of Program (for the Organization, Teen Participants, and the Community). Opportunities for PA programming would not have been possible without the microgrant funding. Microgrant funding was valuable in promoting PA for adolescents, and they afforded opportunities for adolescents to engage in new and/or nontraditional activities. In addition to promoting PA, the microgrants had benefits for participants and the community organizations including improved organizational capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Microgrants appear to be an effective mechanism for enhancing community capacity to provide PA opportunities for Canadian adolescents by helping to reduce financial barriers and empowering adolescents to take an active role in identifying and hosting new and creative PA events within their communities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".