Experiences participating in a community-based exercise programme from the perspective of people living with HIV: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to explore the experiences of engaging in a community-based exercise programme (CBEP) from the perspective of people living with HIV (PLWH). DESIGN: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: We recruited adults living with HIV who participated in a 16-week CBEP in Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 11 participants, the majority men (64%), with a median age of 52 years, and living with a median of 5 concurrent health conditions in addition to HIV participated in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: We asked participants about their overall experiences: strengths, limitations and perceived benefits of the CBEP; factors influencing participation and current level of exercise after completion of the CBEP. We administered a self-reported demographic questionnaire followed by the Rapid Assessment of Physical Activity (RAPA) questionnaire. We analysed interview data using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We developed a framework that describes the experiences before, during and after the CBEP; and the perceived impact of the CBEP on health, which influenced the intent to, engagement in and sustainability of exercise among PLWH. Participants described the positive impact of the CBEP on their physical, mental and social health. Interviews were completed at a median of 6 months after the CBEP, when 9 participants reported ongoing engagement in exercise, but to a lesser extent than during the CBEP. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors facilitated or hindered engagement in exercise throughout all phases of the CBEP. The episodic nature of HIV and multimorbidity influenced engagement in exercise and posed challenges to re-engagement after periods of inactivity. CONCLUSIONS: CBEPs provide an opportunity to enhance physical activity, perceived health outcomes and knowledge about exercise for PLWH. Community-based exercise is a strategy that may be used by health providers to promote engagement in sustained physical activity for 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".