Leisure-time physical activity patterns and relationship to generalized distress among Canadians with arthritis or rheumatism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the epidemiology and possible mental health benefits of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) for persons with arthritis and other rheumatic conditions. We examined the prevalence of LTPA and its association to generalized distress among Canadians with rheumatic conditions. METHODS: The 1996-97 National Population Health Survey interview data from respondents with rheumatic conditions (n = 10,700) and persons with no chronic conditions (n = 19791) in the same age range (20-79 yrs) were selected for analyses. Self-reported data on forms and frequency of LTPA engaged in over the past 3 months were collected. Intensity of LTPA was expressed as total energy expenditure, with respondents classified as Active (> or = 3.0 kcal/kg/day), Moderate (1.5-2.9 kcal/kg/day), and Inactive (< 1.5 kcal/kg/day). Generalized distress was assessed using a subset of items from the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. RESULTS: Similar to persons with no chronic conditions, roughly 56% of persons with rheumatic conditions engaged in regular LTPA (12 or more 15-minute sessions per month). Only 13.2% of women and 18.9% of men with rheumatic conditions were sufficiently active at the level recommended to yield optimal health benefits. Both moderate and higher intensity LTPA was associated with less generalized distress. This relationship was more pronounced for women and for middle-aged and older patients with rheumatic conditions. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of Canadians with rheumatic conditions are physically inactive. Even moderate intensity LTPA is associated with decreased generalized distress. Better efforts must be directed at promoting LTPA as part of the multidisciplinary management of this condition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".