MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405016317 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1470050

Barriers and facilitators to the dissemination of national movement behavior guidelines among health-promoting organizations: a qualitative study

2024· article· en· W4405016317 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kaitlyn D. Kauffeldt, Isaac Kelman McFadyen, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Guy Faulkner, Jennifer R. Tomasone

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchQueen's UniversityPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsQualitative researchInformation DisseminationPublic relationsMedicinePsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: National movement behavior guidelines offer evidence-informed recommendations for how to obtain health benefits. However, their impact on practice and policy has been limited. Factors at multiple levels determine the effective mobilization of knowledge into practice. Historically, little attention has been paid to assessing the social, organizational, and economic factors that influence the uptake of national movement behavior guidelines; potentially contributing to their blunted impact on public health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators experienced by intermediary organizations to disseminating national movement behavior guidelines. Methods: Representatives from organizations involved in the development and dissemination of the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults 18-64 Years and Adults 65 Years or Older were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews to explore barriers and facilitators to national movement behavior guideline dissemination. Interview guides were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Fourteen interviews were conducted, and transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Identified barriers and facilitators were mapped onto the CFIR. Results: Participants identified several elements that have the potential to influence the dissemination of national movement behavior guidelines, such as organizational alignment, resources (i.e., time, human, financial), and ownership of the guidelines. Conclusion: This study provides insight into the breadth of barriers and facilitators to guideline dissemination that may be experienced by intermediary organizations. Findings may be used to inform interventions designed to improve the dissemination and uptake of national movement behavior guidelines among health-promoting organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.356
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public Health→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→