End user evaluation of the Canadian Spinal Cord Injury Physical Activity Guidelines: Barriers and facilitators to uptake and dissemination in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To engage U.S. end users to (1) gather information on facilitators and barriers to awareness and adoption of the Canadian Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Physical Activity (PA) guidelines; (2) inform potential adaptations to the presentation and messaging of the guidelines; and (3) develop recommendations for targeted dissemination strategies to promote awareness in the United States. DESIGN: Multi-method. SETTING: Working groups conducted remotely via Zoom and online surveys. PARTICIPANTS: = 6). INTERVENTIONS: N/A. OUTCOME MEASURES: N/A. RESULTS: Participants highlighted the need for centralised, credible sources of information on PA. While participants generally viewed the guidelines as appropriate, useable, and acceptable, some questioned their credibility, as they were developed explicitly for Canadians with SCI rather than Americans. To enhance reach and effectiveness, participants suggested dissemination strategies that target specific audiences (i.e. level of functioning, level of injury, current level of PA). They also recommended collaborations with existing trusted community SCI organisations. CONCLUSION: Findings underscore the need for accessible, centralised, and credible information sources on PA tailored to the needs of the SCI community. Findings also suggest that while the guidelines do not require redevelopment for a U.S. context, they do need customised presentation, such as removing Canadian symbols from the materials, to better suit U.S. audiences. Effective dissemination will benefit from targeted strategies that leverage trusted organisations to reach and engage specific groups, ultimately supporting greater guideline awareness, acceptance, and application across the SCI population.
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 | 0.095 | 0.172 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".