Health promotion needs of women living in rural areas: an exploratory study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the types of health-promoting activities currently engaged in by women who live in rural communities, to explore perceived barriers and facilitators to staying healthy in rural communities, and to examine how these factors may differ for women throughout their adult life. DESIGN: Qualitative pilot study. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Women aged 18 years and older living in a small rural community in Saskatchewan. METHOD: Eight focus groups were conducted with a total of 44 participants who had been stratified into 3 age groups. Content analysis of the focus group transcripts was undertaken. MAIN FINDINGS: Older women were more likely to report that they engage in a balance of activities to promote their physical and mental health. Middle and younger aged women, however, were more likely to engage in activities to promote their physical health, with less emphasis on their mental health. Among the 3 age groups, exercise and nutrition-related activities were most commonly reported. Social support and the "rural way of life" were the most commonly reported community supports available to these women. Younger women were more likely to discuss family commitments as a barrier to maintaining physical fitness,and older women discussed the impact that loneliness and lack of appropriate exercise options had on healthy living in their community. CONCLUSION: The interviews provided a chance for a group of rural women to paint their own picture of promoting and maintaining their health in their own community. The activities engaged in by women to maintain their health, and the barriers and facilitators to staying healthy were different for women of different ages. It is useful for health planners to understand how women's health promotion needs vary across their adult life span.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".