Exploring Perceptions of Barriers, Facilitators, and Motivators to Physical Activity Among Female Bariatric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore barriers, facilitators, and motivators to adopting and maintaining regular physical activity among women with obesity who have undergone bariatric surgery. APPROACH: Individual interviews with women 3 to 24 months post-bariatric surgery. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a bariatric clinic in Montreal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve women were recruited (mean age = 47 ± 9 years) using poster advertisements and word of mouth. Participants were on average 15 months postsurgery. METHOD: Each woman was interviewed once using a semistructured interview protocol. Recruitment was conducted until data saturation (i.e., no new information emerged). The interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three interrelated themes emerged: the physical body, appraisal of the physical and social self, and the exercise environment. Barriers included weight-restricted mobility, side effects of surgery, body dissatisfaction, compromised psychological health, competing responsibilities, a lack of exercise self-efficacy and social support, reduced access to accommodating facilities, lack of exercise knowledge, and northern climate. Participants reported postsurgical weight loss, weight and health maintenance, enjoyment, body image, and supportive active relationships, as well as access to accommodating facilities and exercise knowledge, as facilitators and motivators. CONCLUSION: Suggested physical activity programming strategies for health care professionals working with this unique population are discussed. Physical activity and health promotion initiatives can also benefit from a cultural paradigm shift away from weight-based representations of health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".