Facilitators and Barriers to Exercising Among People With Osteoarthritis: A Phenomenological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that regular exercise improves the well-being of individuals with osteoarthritis (OA). However, these individuals seem to exercise less frequently than the general population and seem to have limited adherence to exercising. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were: (1) to increase knowledge and understanding of the experience of exercising among individuals with OA and (2) to determine what they perceive as facilitators and barriers to exercising. DESIGN AND METHOD: This study used a qualitative method, based on the Vancouver School of doing phenomenology, involving purposive sampling of 12 individuals and 16 interviews. The participants, 9 women and 3 men, were 50 to 82 years of age. RESULTS: Extended information on exercise behavior among people with OA is presented in a model in which internal and external facilitators and barriers to exercising are delineated. Based on this model, a checklist is proposed for physical therapists' assessment of these factors. Internal factors include individual attributes and personal experience of exercising, whereas external factors include the social and physical environment. The participants expressed how each of these internal and external factors could act both as a facilitator and a barrier to exercise participation and the pattern of exercising; for example, the presence of pain was an important aspect concerning internal barriers to exercising, whereas the hope of less pain was one of the main facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Increased knowledge and understanding of the factors influencing exercise behavior in people with OA can help physical therapists and other health care professionals support them in initiating and maintaining a healthy exercise routine and, consequently, achieving a better quality of life.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".