Exploring physical activity and sedentary behaviour: perspectives of individuals with osteoarthritis and knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the understanding of physical activity and sedentary behaviour, including barriers and health influences in people with osteoarthritis and knee arthroplasty.Methods: Eight participants with knee osteoarthritis and 14 participants with total knee arthroplasty were recruited to five focus groups. Interpretive description was used with thematic analysis of data.Results: Three primary themes arose: (1) continuum of activity; (2) barriers to increasing physical activity and barriers to reducing sedentary behavior, and (3) knowledge gap. While participants were generally familiar with the concepts of physical activity and sedentary behaviour, they were not aware of health risks associated with high levels of sedentary time and did not consider substituting standing and light walking for activities typically done in sitting. Participants reported that extrinsic barriers (e.g., related to social and cultural contexts or the physical environment) influenced sedentary behaviour more than intrinsic factors.Conclusions: Patients would benefit from clinicians providing education about risks associated with sedentary behaviour and strategies to reduce and/or break up sitting time. Future research should continue to explore personal as well as societal, environmental, political, and economic influences on sedentary behaviour and physical activity to promote behaviour change.Implications for rehabilitationPeople with osteoarthritis and total knee arthroplasty are not aware of health risks associated with high levels of sedentary behaviour.This cohort tends to think about increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels (versus increasing light activity) when asked to consider ways to reduce sedentary behaviour.Social and environmental factors strongly influence sedentary behaviour. Clinicians need to be aware of the pervasive nature of sedentary behaviour and provide knowledge and strategies to change peoples’ sitting habits.Addressing intrinsic factors (e.g., related to comorbidities, ageing, and personal preferences) with education and the use of existing behaviour change techniques may enable increased physical activity levels.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".