Physician Practice Patterns and Barriers to Counselling on Physical Activity in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Many solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients fail to meet the recommendations for population-based physical activity (PA) levels. “Physician recommendation” has previously been reported by SOT recipients as a key facilitator to being more physically active. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of Canadian SOT physicians providing PA counselling and identify barriers to including such counselling as part of the SOT recipients’ routine care. Material and Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey study to evaluate physicians’ PA counselling practices, including the prevalence and barriers to such practice. Investigators developed a 21-item questionnaire which was composed of 6 subsections: A) Pre-questionnaire eligibility (1 item); B) Consent (1 item); C) Demographics (6 items); D) Knowledge about physical activity (6 items); E) Physical activity counselling and potential barriers (5 items); and F) Future considerations (2 items). A survey link was sent to a convenience sample of transplant physicians who are members of the Canadian Society of Transplantation. Results and Discussion Thirty-four physicians (13.6%) participated in the survey. The majority of the respondents worked with kidney (65%; n=22), liver (32%; n=11), or pancreas (29%; n=10) organ groups. While 97% (n=33) of the participants reported providing PA counselling to their transplant patients, only 27% provided PA counselling to all their patients and only 18% (n=6) responded they were very confident in PA counselling. The main barriers reported by SOT physicians to PA counselling were lack of time (n=19; 56%) and exercise guidelines (n=18, 53%), followed by lack of confidence (n=8; 23%), research evidence (n=7; 20%) and knowledge about exercise (n=7; 20%). Conclusions Increasing educational opportunities for physicians to learn about PA and exercise, developing specific PA guidelines for SOT as well as establishing a referral system to exercise specialists might improve the frequency and quality of PA counselling post-transplant.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".