The physical activity messaging needs and preferences of parents of children with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many children with disabilities (CWD) engage in less physical activity (PA) than their typically developing peers. Messaging campaigns that target parents of CWD can promote PA participation amongst CWD. Guided by the Adapted Social Issue Advertising Believability Model, the aim of this study was to inform the development of PA promotion messages targeted at parents of CWD. Focus groups were conducted with parents of CWD (N=28; Mage=49.23; 57.14% female) to examine factors related to message uptake including parents' attitudes, perceived behavioural control regarding support for their children's participation in PA, and their messaging needs regarding preferred methods and messengers of message content. Preliminary findings of a qualitative content analysis revealed that participants valued the use of reputable brands, accreditation, and narrative stories to enhance message believability. Participants highlighted attitudinal beliefs (e.g., parent enjoyinment in supporting their child) and control beliefs (e.g., confidence to provide support, programming and resource awareness) that may be suitable to target in messaging campaigns. Participants also highlighted the need for child belongingness and engagement, two elements of quality PA participation. Messaging campaigns that illustrate PA as an opportunity for belonging and engagement may be particularly persuasive. Sponsored messages that highlight available resources, use narrative stores, and promote belongingness and engagement, may be effective in motivating parents to support PA participation among CWD.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".