Community-Based Exercise in the Context of HIV: Factors to Consider when Developing and Implementing Community-Based Exercise Programs for People Living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors to consider for developing and implementing a community-based exercise (CBE) program for people living with HIV (PLWH). METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews with PLWH, rehabilitation professionals, and recreation providers from Canada and the United Kingdom. We asked participants to describe their experience with exercise, facilitators, and barriers to accessing and participating in exercise, and factors to consider in developing a CBE program for PLWH. Interviews were analyzed using content analytical techniques. RESULTS: We developed a Framework of CBE in the Context of HIV that describes (1) exercise experiences of PLWH (nature of exercise, motivators for initiating or sustaining exercise, perceived benefits, and barriers and facilitators to exercise) and (2) 11 factors to consider in developing and implementing a CBE program for PLWH. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for the development and implementation of an accessible and feasible CBE program may enhance exercise participation among PLWH.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".