University students' knowledge, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, barriers and ideas related to reducing sedentary behaviour: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High levels of sedentary behaviour are associated with detrimental health outcomes. University students are a subpopulation at high risk of excessive sedentary behaviour. Research examining university students' perceptions related sedentary behaviour is limited. Accordingly, we conducted a qualitative study that sought to extend our understanding of Canadian university students' knowledge and perceptions related to sedentary behaviour, including their understanding of the concept and health risks, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, barriers, and intervention ideas related to reducing sedentary behaviour. Four focus groups were conducted with 19 undergraduate and graduate students (female=13; mean age=24.6 ± 7.10 years) from a large Canadian university. Discussions were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded to identify categories and themes using commonly practiced methods used in qualitative analysis. Findings revealed that some students did not fully understand the concept of sedentary behaviour, but that most were aware of health risks associated with sedentary behaviour. Most students were confident they could reduce their sedentary behaviour, but expressed how it would be unlikely they would actually do so because they believed that: (a) sitting less is not an important priority, (b) health consequences of excessive sitting are distal, (c) increasing standing and light-intensity activity would not provide meaningful health benefits, and (d) class schedules/norms/infrastructure encourage sitting and are not under their control to change. Although more research in this area is needed, the findings from this study may help inform interventions to decrease excessive sedentary behaviour among university students.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".