An exploratory study examining communication about sedentary behaviour to older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, sedentary behaviour has emerged as an important health behaviour that is distinct from physical activity. Older adults accumulate the greatest amount of sedentary time compared to other age groups, yet, few studies have identified effective strategies to reduce the amount of time older adults spend sitting. The purpose of this study was to guide the development of effective communication strategies about reducing sedentary behaviour for older adults residing in assisted living facilities. More specifically, the purpose of this study was to explore perceptions and feelings about sedentary behaviour messages with a specific focus on (a) the written/verbal and visual content of messages, and (b) message-framing. 30 older adults (25 women and 5 men) from assisted-living facilities in Lethbridge, Alberta, participated in a focus group (n = 7). Focus groups were directed by semi-structured interview guides that asked participants about their perceptions, beliefs, motives, and recommendations regarding sedentary behaviour. They were also asked to view six messages with information about sedentary behaviour using varied formats and images; all messages were presented using either gain- and loss-framed language. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic approach. Findings revealed the complexity of communicating about sedentary behaviour to older adults. This presentation will shed light on the participants' understanding and awareness of sedentary behaviour, the images and information that they found motivating, recommendations for what to include or avoid when communicating this information, and will highlight inconsistencies and resistance participants had toward sedentary behaviour reduction messages.Acknowledgments: This project was funding by the University of Lethbridge Community of Research Excellence Development Opportunities
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".