Seeking Self-Worth: Physical Activity Behavior Engagement in Rural Nova Scotia Women Post Myocardial Infarction: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence indicates that regular physical activity (e.g., aerobic physical activity for 30 minutes most days of the week) reduces recurrent cardiac events and death rates in women with coronary heart disease (CHD). However, study findings consistently report higher rates of physical inactivity among rural versus urban women. In addition, rural women experience significant geographic disparities, health inequities, and limited access to health care services and providers, creating further self-care challenges such as engaging in recommended physical activity behaviors post-MI. To understand how rural Nova Scotia (NS) women engage in physical activity behaviors post MI, and factors that affect their physical activity in the post-MI period, constructivist grounded theory (CGT) and photovoice methodologies and methods were used in this research. Eighteen NS women from rural settings participated in two interviews and in the taking of personal photographs using provided disposable cameras. Findings from the narrative and visual data culminated in a substantive theory, “Seeking-Self Worth: A Theory of How Rural Women Engage in Physical Activity Behavior Post-MI.” What was most problematic for study participants was questioning self-worth as a rural woman post-MI. To manage this problem, study participants engaged in the process of seeking self-worth as a rural woman post-MI. The theory of seeking self-worth also involved the processes of assessing MI damage and physical activity, testing physical activity limits, and choosing physical activity priorities. All of these processes played out within a rural context where gender and contextual factors encouraged or hindered study participants’ seeking of self-worth post-MI and, subsequently, their engagement in physical activity behavior post-MI. This substantive theory has implications for nursing, particularly rural public health nurses and nurse practitioners, in the areas of practice, education, research, and policy development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".