Conditions and strategies influencing sustainability of a community-based exercise program incorporating a healthcare-community partnership for people with balance and mobility limitations in Canada: A collective case study of the Together in Movement and Exercise (TIME™) program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Community-based exercise programs delivered through healthcare-community partnerships (CBEP-HCPs) are beneficial to individuals with balance and mobility limitations. For the community to benefit, however, these programs must be sustained over time. Purpose: To identify conditions influencing the sustainability of CBEP-HCPs for people with balance and mobility limitations and strategies used to promote sustainability based on experiences of program providers, exercise participants, and caregivers. Methods: Using a qualitative collective case study design, we invited stakeholders (program providers, exercise participants, and caregivers) from sites that had been running a CBEP-HCP for people with balance and mobility limitations for ≥4 years; and sites where the CBEP-HCP had been discontinued, to participate. We used two sustainability models to inform development of interview guides and data analysis. Qualitative data from each site were integrated using a narrative approach to foster deeper understanding of within-organization experiences. Results: = 2), Canada, participated. Sites with sustained programs were characterized by conditions such as need for the program in the community, presence of secure funding or cost recovery mechanisms, presence of community partners, availability of experienced and motivated instructors, and the capacity to allocate resources towards program marketing and participant recruitment. For sites where programs discontinued, diminished participation and/or enrollment and an inability to allocate sufficient financial, human, and logistical resources towards the program affected program continuity. Participants from discontinued sites also identified issues such as staff with low motivation and limited experience, and presence of competing programs within the organization or the community. Staff associated the absence of referral pathways, insufficient community awareness of the program, and the inability to recover program cost due to poor participation, with program discontinuation. Conclusion: Sustainability of CBEP-HCPs for people with balance and mobility limitations is influenced by conditions that exist during program implementation and delivery, including the need for the program in the community, and organization and community capacity to bear the program's financial and resource requirements. Complex interactions among these factors, in addition to strategies employed by program staff to promote sustainability, influence program sustainability.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".