Exploring barriers and facilitators to the implementation of Exercise is Medicine® Canada on campus groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Exercise is Medicine® Canada on Campus (EIMC-OC) program was established in 2013 to foster relationships between health care professional trainees, while providing opportunities for students to implement PA promotion initiatives. Currently, 34 EIMC-OC groups are in operation, and each has encountered challenges and successes that have yet to be formally documented. The purpose of the current project was to identify barriers and facilitators when implementing an EIMC group on a university or college campus. Representatives from interested EIMC-OC groups were asked to complete a preliminary survey and participate in a semi-structured interview based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research in order to unpack groups' barriers and facilitators at multiple levels of implementation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to thematic analysis. Twelve EIMC-OC groups from six provinces participated. Common barriers included lack of finances, time constraints of group members due to other commitments, recruitment of students from a variety of disciplines, and encouraging health care professionals to follow through with exercise prescriptions. Common facilitators included the enthusiasm and commitment of group members, consistent support from one or more faculty members, regular face-to-face group meetings with tangible action items, using a project-based structure where tasks are delegated to appointed leaders, communication with other EIMC-OC groups, and collaboration with other campus or community groups. Although each EIMC-OC group is shaped by its local context, groups face similar barriers and facilitators. The sharing of best practices between groups can provide direction for, and enhance the success of, the EIMC-OC program.
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 | 0.023 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".