Modes of physical activity reported by older adults living with osteoporosis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity is recommended as an adjunct to treatment for persons living with osteoporosis. Results from numerous studies demonstrate the health benefits linked with physical activity for persons living with osteoporosis yet little is known about the types of leisure-time physical activities reported by adults living with osteoporosis in Canada. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to address two questions: (1) What is the most common mode of physical activity reported by older adults living with osteoporosis in Canada? and (2) Does the mode of physical activity reported by older adults living with osteoporosis in Canada differ between males and females? Methods: Participants were enrolled in Cycle 2.2 of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) who reported a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Males (n = 167) and females (n = 1371) responded to select demographic questions and a modified version of the Physical Activity Monitor (m-PAM). Results: Walking for exercise was the most common mode of physical activity reported by males (60.5%) and females (60.7%) followed by gardening/yard work (34.8% to 44.9%) then home-based exercise (21.6% to 23.8%). Chi-square analyses revealed sex-differences in mode of participation for 11 of 21 physical activities assessed with the m-PAM. Conclusions: Overall, the findings of this study imply consideration of sex and mode of physical activity may be key issues for health professionals and policy developers to consider in designing and implementing physical activity programs for older adults living with osteoporosis in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".