Public opinion on community-based education and exercise programs for managing hip and knee osteoarthritis-like symptoms: results of a survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In North America, delivery of targeted exercise and education programs by health professionals for people with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) poses challenges related to cost and access. Linking the wellness and health sectors could increase program availability. We evaluated if people with OA were willing to participate in programs delivered by trainers in community centers/gyms. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of the general public in Canada over a period of 2 months. Participants included those aged ≥30 years with self-reported chronic OA-like knee or hip pain. We evaluated access to community/fitness centers, exercise frequency, interest in attending an evidence-based program twice a week for 6 weeks, and willingness to pay. Analyses included descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals and chi-square tests to evaluate factors associated with willingness to attend the program. RESULTS: After removing duplicate records, 751 respondents completed the survey with 408 likely having hip and/or knee OA and never having received a joint replacement. These 408 respondents had an age range of 30 to ≥75 years and 86% were female. Of the 408, (63.7%) were between 45 and 64 years of age. Only two respondents reported that a community center was >1 hour away. One hundred and fifty-six (38%) reported a current membership, and 203 (50.4%) reported exercise 3 days/wk, 120 (29.8%) <3 days, and 80 (19.9%) reported no exercise. Two hundred and ninety-seven respondents (73.7%) were willing to attend a program, and, of these, 26% were willing to pay $100 Cdn or more. Age, sex, access to a community center/gym, current gym membership, and current frequency of exercise were not significantly associated with willingness to attend a program. CONCLUSION: Almost 75% of respondents with OA, despite one in three having a community center membership, were interested in attending a targeted program delivered in community/fitness centers. A program in the wellness sector may be a viable option to support people in managing their hip and or knee OA.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".