Perceptions of Trained Leaders on Improving the Public Health Impact of Three Arthritis Foundation Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arthritis Foundation (AF) offers effective community-based programs to help manage arthritis, including aquatic, exercise, and self-help programs. Trained leaders can facilitate the adoption, maintenance, and reach of these programs and thus the impact on public health. This study identifies reasons for becoming AF aquatic, exercise, and/or self-help program leaders, AF program reach, and adoption and maintenance challenges encountered by individuals after being trained. Researchers interviewed by telephone 72 participants who attended an AF leader training workshop. Participants reported various reasons for becoming program leaders (e.g., a wish to help others). AF programs were mainly adopted and maintained in urban communities and in fitness/ health clubs, medical centers, or senior centers. Aquatics programs were the most frequently offered, and all programs had low reach (with a mean number of participants of 14.41, 12.50, and 11.00 for aquatic programs, exercise programs, and self-help programs, respectively. Challenges to adopting and maintaining programs include the time of year (e.g., winter, holidays) and lack of a facility to offer the program.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".