Preferred methods and messengers for delivering physical activity information to people with spinal cord injury: A focus group study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of people with spinal cord injury (SCI) regarding preferred messengers and methods for obtaining physical activity (PA) information. DESIGN: Using a phenomenological approach and interviewing techniques, five focus groups discussed PA information delivery methods and messengers. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen community-dwelling adults with SCI (62.5% tetraplegia, 37.5% paraplegia; at least one-year postinjury) whose PA levels ranged from sedentary to regularly active. RESULTS: Content analyses revealed that the preferred media for obtaining PA information were passive sources (e.g., Internet, DVDs, newsletters). The preferred messengers were peers and health service providers. There were diverse perspectives about the value and types of PA messages to share with people in the acute, rehabilitation, and postdischarge stages. CONCLUSIONS: The methods and messengers identified in this study illustrate the need for interdisciplinary engagement among various program and health care providers to work together to effectively deliver PA information to all individuals with SCI. People will be receptive to different messages, from different channels, at different times.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".