Lessons learned from "Changing Minds" to increase health care professionals' intentions to discuss physical activity with patients with a physical disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only 3% of Canadians with a physical disability engage in physical activity (PA) despite accumulating research evidence about the benefits of, and efficacious strategies that can enhance, participation among this group. While health care professionals (HCPs) have been identified as important conduits of PA information among this group, few discuss PA with their patients. The Canadian Paralympic Committee offers Changing Minds, Changing Lives (CMCL), a nationwide, seminar-mediated educational program that addresses this gap by providing HCPs with the knowledge, strategies and resources needed to discuss PA with their patients with physical disabilities. This presentation will provide an overview of the participatory curriculum development process that engaged a number of stakeholders, including HCPs, to refine the existing CMCL intervention. The steps used in this integrated knowledge translation (KT) approach will be discussed, including the inductive process that led to the selection of the Theory of Planned Behaviour as an underlying theory for the intervention and its subsequent evaluation. The overall findings from CMCL’s nationwide evaluation will be briefly reviewed, with a focus on HCPs’ feedback about the intervention. HCPs’ recall of the Canadian PA guidelines for the general and spinal cord injury populations at pre- and post-intervention, as well as at 1- and 6-month follow-up, will be explored. Finally, lessons learned “behind the scenes” with regards to working with stakeholders, maintaining control of nationwide implementation and data collection, and integrating KT practice with KT science will be shared.Acknowledgments: Work supported by a Mentor-Trainee Capacity Building in Knowledge Mobilization Award from the Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation and Rick Hansen Institute, and study funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The partnership between the Canadian Paralympic Committee and SCI Action Canada facilitated the re-development, implementation, and evaluation of the Changing Minds, Changing Lives intervention across Canada.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".