Relationships between cigarette smoking, leisure-time physical activity, and social participation among persons with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: People with spinal cord injury (SCI) are more likely than their able-bodied counterparts to report cigarette smoking, low leisure-time physical activity (LTPA), and barriers to social participation. Interventions targeting these behaviours may enhance the lives of persons with SCI, as targeting a single behaviour may affect the others. However, the relationship between these behaviours has not been assessed in the SCI population. This study aims to explore the relationships between smoking, LTPA, and social participation among people with SCI. Methods: Data were analyzed from the Study of Health and Activity in People with Spinal Cord Injury (SHAPE-SCI) regarding cigarette smoking rates, LTPA (Physical Activity Recall Assessment), and social participation (physical independence, social integration, and occupation subscales of the Craig Handicap Assessment and Reporting Technique – Short Form). LTPA was converted to a categorical variable: no LTPA, 40 minutes of LTPA. Social participation subscales were dichotomized: moderate-to-severe restriction and mild-to-no restriction. Chi-squared tests were used to assess the relationship between cigarette smoking, LTPA, and social participation. Results: Of the 693 participants, 151 (22%) smoked (117 males; 34 females). Participants who smoked were less likely to report moderate-to-severe restrictions to physical independence than those who did not smokers. (X2=5.4, p=.03). No differences in levels of LTPA were observed between those who smoked or did not smoke (X2=2.3, p=.31). Conclusion: Findings suggests that people with SCI who smoke may have greater levels of physical independence than non-smokers. These insights may inform development of SCI-specific smoking cessation interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".