Perceptions of ‘physical activity’ and ‘exercise’ among people living with HIV: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aims: Many people living with HIV do not engage in regular physical activity and it is unclear how perceptions of physical activity and exercise influence participation. Our aim was to explore individual perceptions of physical activity and exercise in people living with HIV. Methods: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using face-to-face semi-structured interviews. We recruited adults who self-identified as living with HIV from a speciality hospital in Toronto, Canada. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings: A total of 14 participants with a median age of 50 years participated in the study. Four themes (and subsequent sub-themes) emerged relating to physical activity and exercise. These included: (1) perceptions of physical activity and exercise (seeing them as a continuum of activity, as a health-promoting behaviour, and that they ‘should’ be a greater priority); (2) benefits (restores physical function, improves mental health, and prevents isolation); (3) risks (physical injury, pain, and fear of ‘overdoing it’); and (4) recommendations for engagement (education, graded activity, and an individualised approach). Conclusions: Findings suggest health care professionals should consider exploring perceptions of physical activity and exercise among people living with HIV to ensure physical activity interventions are individualised to meet their diverse health and wellbeing needs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".