Family Physicians’ Perceptions Toward Writing Physical Activity Prescriptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many clinical guidelines suggest that physical activity (PA) be considered as a first line therapeutic approach. Concurrently, most physicians recognize the many health benefits of PA for their patients. Still, few family physicians currently prescribe PA to their patients. Prior research has shown that physicians perceive various barriers that hinder the systematic promotion of PA. However, no study has contrasted the barriers reported by physicians who regularly prescribe PA with those who are not prescribing it. This would inform the development of tailored strategies to counter barriers and promote greater use of PA prescriptions by family physicians. PURPOSE: To explore barriers and enablers to prescribing PA as a therapy among family physicians who are currently prescribing PA to their patients and those who are not. METHODS: Participants were drawn from a web-based survey, which comprised of 51 physicians. For the current study, identified family physicians prescribing PA (n=3; prescribers) and not prescribing it (n=7; non-prescribers) participated in a face-to-face semi-structured interview. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was employed in which 4 researchers independently identified barrier and enabler themes. RESULTS: Various barriers hindering PA prescriptions were reported by both groups of physicians, with some differences noted across groups. Cross-group comparisons also led to the identification of enablers among prescribers, including valuing PA prescription, recognizing PA prescription as part of family medicine, having access to resources (e.g., PA prescription pads), and developing resiliency against patient rebuttal and non-compliance. CONCLUSIONS: This study improves our understanding of the barriers encountered by family physicians to prescribing PA to their patients. Focusing on the enabling factors elucidated in this study may help family physicians counter their perceived barriers and increase PA prescription rates.
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 | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".