Perceptions of exercise screening among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prephysical activity screening is important for older adults' participating in physical activity. Unfortunately, many older adults face barriers to exercise participation and thus, may not complete proper physical activity screening. The purpose of this project was to conduct a thematic analysis of perceptions and experiences of community-dwelling older adults regarding prephysical activity screening (i.e., Get Active Questionnaire (GAQ) and a standardized exercise stress test). A convenience sample of adults (male n = 58, female n = 54) aged 75 ± 7 years living in the City of London, Ontario, Canada, was used. Participants completed a treadmill stress test and the GAQ at a research laboratory for community-based referrals. One week later, participants completed the GAQ again and were asked questions by a research assistant about their perceptions of the screening process. Thematic analysis of the responses was conducted. The results indicated that older adults view physical activity screening as acceptable, but not always necessary. Also, the experiences expressed by this sample of older adults indicated that physical activity screening can contribute to continued confidence (through reassurance) and can contribute to increased motivation (through yearly fitness results) in exercise participation. In conclusion, older adults may perceive screening as supportive in exercise adoption, if screening is simple, convenient, and supports older adults' motivation and confidence to exercise.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".