Promoting Participation in Physical Activity and Exercise Among People Living with Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Study of Strategies Used by People with Pain and Their Recommendations for Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore strategies used by people living with chronic pain when participating in physical activity and exercise and their recommendations for health care providers when promoting participation in physical activity and exercise. DESIGN: Interpretive description qualitative study. SETTING: Participants were recruited from primary care sites and a hospital-based chronic pain clinic in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. SUBJECTS: Adults (>18 years of age) who self-identified as experiencing chronic pain (three months' duration) were interviewed. METHODS: In-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with participants. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and reviewed for accuracy by the interviewer. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Peer debriefing, reflexivity, and multiple in-person meetings were used to establish trustworthiness. RESULTS: Sixteen adults (five men, 11 women) with a median age of 53 years were interviewed. Strategies used by people living with chronic pain to participate in physical activity and exercise included 1) finding the motivation, 2) setting up for success, 3) leveraging social support, and 4) managing pain and discomfort during activity. Recommendations for health care providers when promoting participation in physical activity and exercise for people living with chronic pain included 1) the importance of listening, 2) providing tailored advice, 3) being supportive, and 4) making physical activity and exercise programming accessible. CONCLUSIONS: People living with chronic pain reported using multiple strategies to participate in physical activity and exercise. Recommendations for health care providers centered on the importance of listening and taking a supportive approach when promoting engagement in physical activity and exercise for this 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".