Exploring a peer-based physical activity program in the community for adults with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of program mentors, participants, and employees involved in a peer-based physical activity (PA) program for adults with moderate-to-severe TBI, being piloted by a community fitness center, to develop the program as a measurable intervention. RESEARCH DESIGN: We adopted an exploratory case study approach through an interpretivist paradigm, which focused on discovering realities about the peer-based PA program across the study participants' views, backgrounds, and experiences. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with nine adult program participants (3 peer mentors, 6 participants), and three program employees. Inductive content analysis was used to develop themes about their perceived experiences. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: 44 open-codes were grouped into 10 subthemes and three final themes: 1) program impacts identified the importance of the program in daily life and resulting psychological, physical, and social outcomes; 2) program characteristics highlighted program leaders, accessibility, and social inclusion; 3) program sustainability included program adherence, benefits for the center, and the program's future. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of program experiences and outcomes identified how peer-based PA for adults with moderate-to-severe TBI can lead to meaningful activities, functioning better, and buy-in from all parties. Implications for research and practice related to supporting health-related behaviors after TBI through group-based, autonomy-supporting approaches are discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".