Perception and Misperception of Health Enhancing Physical Activity among Urban Community Dwellers in Ibadan, Nigeria: Profiling the Underestimators, the Overestimators, and the Realists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to initiate and sustain health enhancing behaviour including physical activity requires appropriate self-perception of such activities. This study was conducted to investigate whether a group of Nigerian urban community dwellers are able to demonstrate a good perception of their physical activity behaviour. METHODOLOGY: The study was a cross-sectional survey of 1,153 urban community dwellers from three local government areas of Ibadan, Southwest Nigeria. Physical activity perception was assessed first; by self-rating of their physical activity based on a moderate-level physical activity vignette, followed by comparison with a more objective measure using the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-Enhancing Physical Activity (SQUASH). Participants were thereafter classified as underestimators, overestimators, realistic actives or realistic inactives. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, with the influence of sociodemographic characteristics on physical activity perception of participants tested with multiple logistic regression analyses at p<0.05. RESULTS: A total of 604 (52.4%) of the community dwellers were physically inactive, but only 269 (23.3%) correctly rated themselves as inactive, 335 (29.1%) participants overestimated their physical activity level and 2.7% underestimated theirs. The odds of overestimation of physical activity was higher in middle-aged participants (OR=2.16; 95% CI=1.75-3.11) but lower among female participants (OR=0.58; 95% CI=0.30-0.79). Being a realistic inactive was associated with increasing age, female gender and higher income. CONCLUSIONS: About half of the community dwellers were physically inactive with about half of them having a misperception of their activity levels. Misperceptions and realities about physical activity were generally linked to sociodemographic characteristics. A specially designed educational intervention programme may provide more insight to the community dwellers about their physical activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".