MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3212291100 · doi:10.1101/2021.11.14.21266319

Considerations for Developing and Implementing an Online Community-Based Exercise Intervention for Adults Living with HIV: a qualitative study

2021· preprint· en· W3212291100 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bernice Lau, Isha Sharma, Sukhbir Manku, Julia Kobylianski, Li Yin Wong, Francisco Ibáñez-Carrasco, Soo Chan Carusone, Kelly K. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV-related health complications and treatments
Canadian institutionsCasey HouseToronto Rehabilitation InstituteMcMaster UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoCanada Research ChairsOntario HIV Treatment Network
KeywordsPsychological interventionCoachingStigma (botany)MedicineOnline communityMedical educationIntervention (counseling)GerontologyPsychologyNursingComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Objectives To describe the need for and utility of online community-based exercise (CBE) interventions with adults living with HIV and identify factors to consider in developing and implementing an online CBE intervention with adults living with HIV. Design Qualitative descriptive study using web-based semi-structured interviews. Participants We recruited adults representing at least one of five stakeholder groups with experience in CBE and/or HIV: 1) adults living with HIV, 2) rehabilitation professionals, 3) fitness personnel, 4) educators with eLearning experience, and 5) representatives from HIV community-based organizations (CBOs). Data Collection We asked participants to describe their experiences with online CBE, need and utility for online CBE, and factors in developing and implementing online CBE interventions. We analyzed data using group-based content analytical techniques. Results Among the 11 participants, most had experience working with adults living with HIV (73%) or with tele-health/rehabilitation/coaching in HIV or other chronic conditions (91%). Participants identified the need and utility for online CBE interventions to increase accessibility and continuity of care with adults living with HIV. Six factors to consider in developing and implementing online CBE included: 1)person-specific considerations (episodic nature of HIV, stigma, HIV disclosure), 2)accessibility of program (physical space to exercise, reliable internet, access to devices, digital literacy), 3)program delivery and technology (live versus pre-recorded online classes, multiple online platforms for delivery, physical activity tracking, troubleshooting technology), 4)attributes of program personnel (working with CBOs, relatable instructors, diverse staff), 5)program content and design (tailored exercise classes, educational sessions) and 6)building community (shared experiences, peer support, social opportunities). Conclusions There is a need and utility for online CBE in the context of HIV. Considerations for development and implementation span individual, structural and technical, and community dimensions. Results can inform the future development and implementation of online CBE with adults living with HIV and other chronic episodic conditions. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study exploring the perspectives of key stakeholders in developing and implementing an online community-based exercise (CBE) program for adults living with HIV. Insights gained from this study can help to inform future online community-based exercise programming for adults living with HIV and other chronic and episodic conditions. We used the Model for ASsessment of Telemedicine applications (MAST) framework as a conceptual foundation to design the interview guide, which enabled us to comprehensively explore diverse aspects of telemedicine services in relation to information, communication and technology. All interviews were conducted online with participants who had access to technological devices and reliable internet, therefore, results may not be transferable to individuals or contexts without access to technology. Most participants were living in Canada, hence, it is unclear how results may be transferable to other geographical contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.146
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicHIV-related health complications and treatments→French-language works237,207→