MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758950132 · doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000000746

Development and Evaluation of Innovative Peer-Led Physical Activity Programs for Mental Health Service Users

2017· article· en· W2758950132 on OpenAlexaffabout
Candida Graham, Roseann Larstone, Brenda Griffiths, Sarah de Leeuw, Lesley Anderson, Stephanie Powell-Hellyer, Nansi Long

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Mental healthService (business)Behavior changePsychologyBehaviour changeApplied psychologyPhysical activityMedical educationPublic relationsMedicineBusinessNursingPsychological interventionPolitical scienceMarketingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health service users (MHSUs) have elevated rates of cardiometabolic disturbance. Improvements occur with physical activity (PA) programs. We report the development and evaluation of three innovative peer-developed and peer-led PA programs: 1) walking; 2) fitness; and 3) yoga. Qualitative evaluation with 33 MHSUs in British Columbia, Canada, occurred. These programs yielded improvements for participants, highlighted by powerful narratives of health improvement, and improved social connections. The feasibility and acceptability of innovative peer-developed and peer-led programs were shown. Analyses revealed concepts related to engagement and change. Relating core categories, we theorize effective engagement of MHSUs requires accessibility on three levels (geographic, cost, and program flexibility) and health behavior change occurs within co-constituent relationships (to self, to peers, and to the wider community). This study highlights the benefits of peer involvement in developing and implementing PA programs and provides a theoretical framework of understanding engagement and behavior change in health programs for MHSUs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.307
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Nervous and Mental DiseaseSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207