P1‐521: FROM BARRIERS TO BEHAVIOR CHANGE: EXERCISE PROVIDERS MAY BE KEY TO ENABLING EXERCISE AMONG PEOPLE LIVING WITH MCI/DEMENTIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise improves physical and mental health among people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, yet many remain inactive. To implement exercise in clinical management, we must address barriers and facilitators in implementation. Our objectives were to: 1) understand barriers and facilitators for exercise among people with MCI/dementia; 2) use this knowledge to identify behavior changes strategies using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW). Focus groups and interviews were conducted with community-dwelling people with MCI/dementia (n=14), care partners (n=12), exercise providers (n=35), and health care professionals (n=15) in Ontario and Northern BC (Canada). Audio recordings were transcribed and thematically analyzed. Themes were mapped to capability, opportunity, and motivation domains of the BCW and mapped to interventions. Seventy-six people participated in interviews and focus groups. Barriers and facilitators were identified by BCW domains: 1) Capability: cognitive deficits, physical health, fatigue; 2) Opportunity: access to programs meeting needs of people with MCI/dementia, poor understanding of dementia by exercise providers, stigma of dementia; 3) Motivation: apathy/low intrinsic motivation, encouraging exercise providers, care partner support, social engagement. The primary intervention selected as most appropriate was enablement of exercise through education and training of exercise providers, which would expand group exercise opportunities with the added benefits of modelling and incentivization by social engagement. Training exercise providers to understand, engage with, and meet the needs of people with MCI/dementia could be key to implementation of exercise in clinical management, by increasing the quantity and quality of exercise programs accessible to people with dementia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".