Arab Health Promoters’ Perspectives on Religious/Cultural Challenges to Adopt Healthy Lifestyle Behaviours among Arab Immigrants in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the importance of faith and cultural background in Arab immigrants’ lives, little is known about their role in preventing cardiovascular diseases. To understand the challenges among Arab immigrants related to acculturation and religiosity in adopting healthy lifestyle behaviours and managing stress, we conducted three face-to-face focus groups with 17 Arab health promoters who were members of the Canadian Arab Health Coalition. Averaging 80 minutes in length, the focus groups were conducted in Ottawa, Canada, in February and March 2018. Data were analyzed with an inductive thematic analysis approach; we identified four themes: “Culture first!”: dominant influence of home country culture; “Religiosity alone does not make you healthy!”: limited religious influence; “It is not easy!”: difficulties adapting to the Canadian lifestyle; and “We are not young!”: generational differences in adopting a healthy lifestyle. In brief, we found that some religious or cultural beliefs may be barriers to practicing physical activity, especially for women and older people. These barriers may be augmented with acculturative stress. Religiosity may also play an important indirect role in managing stress through socialization, family support, and the adoption of coping strategies. Younger people in Arabic communities appear to be more flexible in dealing with these religious/cultural issues.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".