Receptivity of adults with a spinal cord injury towards videoconference-delivered physical activity peer support programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Internet-based communication platforms (ICPs) provide a convenient and cost-effective medium for facilitating physical activity (PA) support. These resources can overcome time and space barriers reported by individuals with a spinal cord injury (SCI). Objective: To understand level of participation and receptivity towards videoconference-delivered PA peer support programs (VPAS) among PA intenders and actors living with a SCI. Methods: Participants (N=30; Mage = 45.27 ± 10.63 years; Myears post-injury = 20.50 ± 12.30 years; 73.3% male; 50% tetraplegia; 20% PA actors) completed an online questionnaire to assess: 1) general participation in ICPs; 2) attitudes towards using ICPs; and 3) preferences, barriers and needs about participating in VPAS groups. Descriptive statistics, independent t-tests and chi-square tests were used for analysis. Results: Email messaging was the most commonly used ICP (96.7%); videoconferencing was ranked fourth highest (50%). ICPs were perceived as somewhat (50%) or completely (33.3%) valuable and enjoyable. Frequently selected appealing and unappealing ICP attributes were real-time communication (63.3%) and lack of personal connection (46.7%), respectively. The majority (60%) of the sample reported interest in a VPAS program. Most participants preferred the support group to include peers with similar PA goals (73.3%) and injury level (66.7%). No differences were found for sample demographics (e.g., injury level) on any videoconference platform preferences. Conclusion: Videoconferencing appears to be a potentially appealing approach for engaging in PA support among intenders and actors living with a SCI. The confirmation of receptivity is a key first step prior to a VPAS intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".