Influences on Physical Activity Participation Among Older Adults: Perspectives of Exercise Professionals and Older Adult Exercise Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared perceptions of enablers, barriers, and motivators to greater physical activity by older adults in two respondent groups: individuals 55+ years of age participating in a research exercise program and exercise professionals who plan and deliver programming to older adults. We developed and administered a questionnaire on potential factors influencing physical activity participation among older adults. Questionnaire items were transformed into scales and analyzed using independent sample Mann–Whitney U tests and principal component analyses (PCA). Statistically significant differences emerged between the respondent groups. Compared to older adults, exercise professionals rated the influence of physical capabilities (p < 0.001), social (p < 0.001) and physical opportunities (p < 0.001), and reflective motivations on barriers to physical activity (p < 0.001) higher. Older adults rated reflecting on the consequences of physical inactivity (p < 0.05) higher. Respondent groups differed in their perspectives regarding the relative influence of enablers, barriers, and motivators to physical activity participation, and these differences may inform physical activity messaging for older adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".