Solid Organ Transplant Recipients' Opinions of Pre- and Post-Transplant Supervised Exercise Programmes: A Brief Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Access to pre- and post-transplant supervised exercise programmes in Canada is not consistent across organ types. The opinions of solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients can contribute to the discussion among stakeholders regarding increasing the availability of supervised exercise programmes. The objective of the study was to determine Canadian SOT recipients' opinions of pre- and post-transplant supervised exercise programmes and the factors that influenced their participation. Method: An Internet-based questionnaire was distributed to members of the Canadian Transplant Association. It was part of a larger survey and examined seven items related to accessibility to, and opinion of, supervised exercise programmes. Results: A total of 35% (n=39) of respondents had attended a pre-transplant exercise programme, and 54% (n=61) had attended a post-transplant exercise programme. The majority of participants believed that a supervised exercise programme was beneficial to health and well-being. Perception of benefits, a physician's recommendation, and health status and symptoms were key influencing factors in the decision of whether to attend a pre- or post-transplant exercise programme. Conclusion: SOT recipients had positive opinions of supervised exercise programmes despite unequal access among organ groups. Some key influencing factors (e.g., a physician's recommendation) are modifiable and should be taken into consideration to encourage participation in such programmes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".