Physician Counseling of Older Adults about Physical Activity: The Importance of Context
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physicians are encouraged to discuss physical activity with their older adult patients. Studies of physician-initiated counseling have yielded inconsistent results, perhaps because older adults' perceptions and concerns about such counseling have not been addressed. The objective of the present work was therefore to explore such perceptions and their implications. DESIGN: Qualitative study, using a grounded theory approach. Data were collected using both focus groups and semistructured interviews. SETTING: Data were collected in several settings, including a fitness center and physicians' offices. SUBJECTS: In a first sample, 56 adults aged 65 and older participated in one of six focus group sessions examining physical activity and exercise. Subsequently, 16 older adults participated in one of two focus groups comprising a second, validation sample. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of five physicians. METHODS: Data collection and analysis took place concurrently. Transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Recruitment, data collection, and analysis were informed by grounded theory. RESULTS: Inactive older adults experiencing a health problem were more receptive than their healthy counterparts to receiving physical activity counseling from their physicians. Those who were receptive appeared to find such an intervention useful in leading to behavior change. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that physicians' efforts in physical activity counseling may have the best impact when provided in the context of a health problem.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it