A Cross-Sectional Study Exploring Motivators and Barriers to Physical Activity Participation Among Hospital Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The workplace is an ideal setting to implement an effective health-promoting program. Insufficient information exists regarding the motivators and barriers to physical activity among working adults in Qatar. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the motivators and barriers to physical activity among adults in a healthcare setting. This cross-sectional study was conducted in an orthopaedic and sports medicine hospital. The participants were Qatari and non-Qatari adult staff (n = 100), who were recruited by word of mouth. They filled out self-administered questionnaires consisting of questions on age, gender, nationality, medical conditions, and the motivators (external, health/medical, and engagement) and barriers (personal, perceptual, and time constraint) to participating in physical activity. The characteristics of participants were: Age (<35 years, 50.5%; ≥35 years, 49.5%), Gender (men, 47.5%; women, 52.5%), Nationality (Qatari, 51%; non-Qatari, 49%), and health status (healthy, 53%; ≥1 medical condition, 47%). Common motivators particularly among workers <35 years, were the desire to maintain weight/shape (83.5%), participating in a sport (67.7%), and getting out of the house (64.2%). Common barriers to exercise were weather (84.9%) and family responsibilities (84.4%). Other barriers, particularly among women, were difficulty in maintaining a routine (82.1%) and finding physical activity uninteresting (52.7%). The most common motivator to physical activity was the desire to maintain weight/shape and the main perceived barrier was the usual hot weather conditions most part of the year). Employers may need to consider the influence of these and other factors to improve the success of a physical activity program implemented in a workplace.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".