Physical activity promotion intervention improved physical activity knowledge, confidence and behaviour among diverse immigrant women: pre–post multiple methods feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Little prior research investigated how to promote physical activity (PA), which can reduce cancer risk, to immigrant women. The overall aim of the current study was to pilot test education session feasibility. The objectives were to assess participation in, satisfaction with and potential impact of the education session, knowledge needed to refine the education session prior to a future trial. Design Pre–post multiple-methods comparative cohort, Setting Canadian immigrant settlement agencies recruited intervention and control women. Participants Intervention: 60 baseline, 53 education (49 virtual group, 4 video only), 1 month (43 virtual, 4 video), 6 months (38 virtual, 4 video), 37% African black; control: 41, 32% African black. Results Among intervention women, PA knowledge increased significantly from baseline at 1 (p<0.001) and 6 (p=0.01) months, as did PA confidence at both time points (p<0.001). PA behaviour increased significantly from baseline at 1 and 6 months for (p<0.001), moderate (p=0.02) and mild (p=0.05) intensity PA. Total PA metabolic equivalent units (METs) also increased significantly from baseline at both time points (p=0.01). PA confidence (p=0.002) and behaviour assessed by weekly minutes of vigorous (p=0.04, n2=0.05) and moderate (p=0.005) intensity PA, and total PA METs (p=0.01) were significantly greater among intervention women compared with control women. PA knowledge was greater among intervention women compared with control women but not significantly (p=0.8). Conclusions The findings underscore an important health promotion role for community agencies, which may interest policy-makers, healthcare leaders and health promotion specialists.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".