[Physical activity: What is its role in the training and practice of psychoeducators in Quebec?]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provision of services that improve the functioning, social participation and quality of life of individuals with behavioral or mental health problems is a common denominator amongst psychosocial professionals in Quebec, including social workers, psychologists and psychoeducators. One intervention that has gained empirical support as an intervention tool is physical activity. In fact, numerous studies have demonstrated the benefits of physical activity for many populations with whom psychosocial professionals work. Objectives Thus, the primary objective of this study was to understand the role physical activity plays in psychosocial intervention, specifically in the field of psychoeducation. The specific objectives of this study are (1) to assess how physical activity spans out in the academic and continuing education of psychoeducators, (2) establish the use of physical activity, and (3) to explore whether certain variables influence the use of physical activity by psychoeducators. Method A total of 150 psychoeducators across Quebec (years of experience: M = 11.2; SD = 9.1) completed an online survey. Descriptive statistics, conditional probability, chi-square, analyses, and logistic regression were performed. Results The results suggest that physical activity is an intervention tool used by psychoeducators, with just over 75% of professionals reporting having used physical activity in their practice. However, very few psychoeducators have received academic or continuing education pertaining to this intervention tool. The use of physical activity was not found to differ across clienteles with whom psychoeducators worked, but was positively and significantly predicted by the number of years of experience of the professionals. Conclusion Considering the numerous benefits associated with physical activity, the results of the present study emphasize the need to reflect on physical activity in psychosocial intervention and on the training offered to professionals in relation to the use of this tool. Taken together, the results of the scientific literature and our study highlight that physical activity can be used as an intervention tool by psychosocial professionals. However, in order to avoid iatrogenic outcomes resulting from inappropriate use of physical activity, further research is needed to ensure that professionals have the necessary training and supervision for safe and effective implementation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".