MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945553679 · doi:10.1038/s41394-019-0188-6

Participant-reported priorities and preferences for developing a home-based physical activity telemonitoring program for persons with tetraplegia: a qualitative analysis

2019· article· en· W2945553679 on OpenAlexaff
Renée Pekmezaris, Andrzej Kozikowski, Briana Pascarelli, John P. Handrakis, Ashley Chory, Doug Griffin, Ona Bloom

Bibliographic record

VenueSpinal Cord Series and Cases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetraplegiaFocus groupThematic analysisMedicineQualitative researchApplied psychologyPsychosocialSpinal cord injuryGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study design: Focus group. Objectives: The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore perceptions and priorities of persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) for physical activity and to incorporate their feedback to inform future development of a physical activity program delivered via a telemonitoring platform. Setting: New York. Methods: = 7). Two investigators led an audio-recorded focus group using a moderator's guide. Data were analyzed using a six-phase thematic analysis approach. Results: The discussion focused on two major areas, which resulted in multiple derived themes and subthemes. The first theme centered on the daily life of persons with tetraplegia, including changes after SCI, gain of function prioritization, and identification of psychosocial support systems that facilitate community reintegration after injury. The second theme centered on participant perceptions and recommendations for a physical activity program delivered via a telemonitoring platform. Desired design features included variations in schedule, diverse activities, or exercises included in each class, and optional two-way video to enable social interactions with classmates. Conclusions: Participants favorably viewed the concept of a physical activity program delivered via a telemonitoring platform and contributed program design ideas. Although this was a small sample size, challenges to obtaining physical activity expressed by participants were consistent with those identified previously in larger studies of persons with tetraplegia. Therefore, we expect these concepts and their recommendations to be relevant to the greater SCI community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.187
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpinal Cord Series and CasesSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207