Demographic differences in Canadian medical students’ motivation and confidence to promote physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) remains under prescribed by physicians. Motivation and confidence are clear drivers of frequency of promoting PA. Research shows demographic differences in physicians' preventive practices, yet none have included medical students who form habits during training. OBJECTIVES: Study objectives were to (i) examine how Canadian medical students' motivation to recommend PA to future patients differs according to six demographic variables (i.e. gender, ethnicity, year of study, university, proposed specialty and academic background) and (ii) examine how Canadian medical students' confidence to recommend PA to future patients differs according to these same demographic variables. METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used. First to fourth year medical students from three medical schools responded to an online survey (N = 221). RESULTS: Female participants were more motivated to counsel patients on PA and refer to an exercise specialist compared to males (P < 0.01). Second year students were more motivated to assess a patients' level of PA compared to third and fourth year students (P < 0.01). Students pursuing family medicine were more confident to assess and counsel compared to students pursuing paediatrics (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Given that motivation and confidence have a positive influence on frequency-promoting PA, these results suggest where future efforts should focus, to improve PA promotion in medical practice. Physical inactivity continues to be a major issue worldwide, and medical students as future physicians have a unique opportunity to enhance PA amongst the population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".