MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2210950091 · doi:10.3138/ptc.2014-74

Promoting Physical Activity and Exercise in Daily Practice: Current Practices, Barriers, and Training Needs of Physiotherapists in Eastern Nigeria

2015· article· en· W2210950091 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ukachukwu Okoroafor Abaraogu, Juliet Chinonso Edeonuh, José Frantz

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiotherapy Canada · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePromotion (chess)Intervention (counseling)Physical activityFamily medicinePhysical therapyMedical prescriptionNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To investigate current practices, barriers, and training needs for the promotion of physical activity (PA) in physiotherapy practices in eastern Nigeria. METHODS: A total of 141 fully licensed physiotherapists in southeast Nigeria were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey consisting of 23 questions in five key sections, focusing mainly on risk-factor management practices of physiotherapists. RESULTS: A total of 103 questionnaires were returned. Respondents ranged in age from 25 to 54 years and reported a mean of 11 (SD 10) years of clinical experience. Respondents reported that they regularly assess and advise their clients on PA but rarely give written prescriptions. Although they are confident in assessing and advising their clients on PA and consider including PA intervention as a priority in daily practice, lack of time and lack of access to materials were reported as barriers to effective PA intervention. CONCLUSION: Findings showed the potential for physiotherapists to address physical inactivity and highlighted several barriers. Strategies are needed to improve contact time with clients and make material promoting PA available to practising physiotherapists.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiotherapy CanadaSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207