Social support and therapeutic relationships intertwine to influence exercise behavior in people with sport-related knee injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Explore how social support influences exercise therapy participation and adherence before and after enrolling in an education and exercise therapy intervention (Stop OsteoARthritis, SOAR).Methods Study design: Interpretative description. We sampled participants with sport-related knee injuries from the SOAR randomized controlled trial. SOAR is a virtual, physiotherapist-guided, education and exercise therapy-based knee health program that targets individuals at risk of early osteoarthritis. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were completed, and an inductive approach was guided by Braun & Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis.Results Fifteen participants (67% female, median age 26 [19–35] years) were interviewed. Three themes were generated that encapsulated participants’ social support experiences that fostered exercise participation: 1) Treat me as a whole person represented the value of social support that went beyond participants’ physical needs, 2) Work with me highlighted the working partnership between the clinician and the participant, and 3) Journey with me indicated a need for on-going support is necessary for the long-term management of participants’ knee health. A theme of the therapeutic relationship was evident across the findings.Conclusions Insight was gained into how and why perceived support may be linked to exercise behavior, with the therapeutic relationship being potentially linked to perceived support. Social support strategies embedded within an education and exercise therapy program may boost exercise adherence after sport-related knee injuries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".