Factors Influencing Physical Activity Participation among Midlife Immigrant Women: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrant women are less likely to be physically active and face many barriers to participation in physical activity. This systematic review aims to identify the influencing factors and adaption approaches of physical activity interventions among midlife immigrant women. A systematic literature search was performed using various databases, such as MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, in February 2021. Studies were included if they investigated midlife immigrant women participating in physical activity interventions and were published in an English peer-reviewed journal in or after 2000. Twenty-two papers were included in this review. Guided by the Ecosocial theory, thematic analysis was utilized for data analysis. Among midlife immigrant women, influencing factors associated with physical activity participation included individual factors (a lack of time, current health status, motivation, and a lack of proficiency in various life skills), familial factors (familial support and seasonality), and community factors (social support and neighbourhood environment). The appropriate adaptation of physical activity interventions included adjustments in language, physical activity intensity, physical activity duration, logistical intervention adjustments and other potential technology-based adjustments. The findings can inform community stakeholders, healthcare professionals and researchers to design appropriate physical activity interventions that meet the needs of midlife immigrant women and improve their health outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".