Engaging Older Men in Physical Activity: Implications for Health Promotion Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Health Canada (2016), only about 11% of older men meet recommended guidelines for physical activity, and participation decreases as men age. This places men at considerable risk of poor health, including an array of chronic diseases. A demographic shift toward a greater population of less healthy older men would substantially challenge an already beleaguered health-care system. One strategy to alter this trajectory might be gender-sensitized community-based physical activity. Therefore, a qualitative study was conducted to enhance understanding of community-dwelling older men's day-to-day experiences with physical activity. Four men over age 65 participated in a semistructured interview, three walk-along interviews, and a photovoice project. An interpretive descriptive approach to data analysis was used to identify three key themes related to men's experiences with physical activity: (a) "The things I've always done," (b) "Out and About," and (c) "You do need the group atmosphere at times." This research extends the knowledge base around intersections among older men, physical activity, and masculinities. The findings provide a glimpse of the diversity of older men and the need for physical activity programs that are unique to individual preferences and capacities. The findings are not generalized to all men but the learnings from this research may be of value to those who design programs for older men in similar contexts. Future studies might address implementation with a larger sample of older men who reside in a broad range of geographic locations and of different ethnicities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".